Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hours of Mary of Burgundy/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2018.

Hours of Mary of Burgundy

 * Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Late 15th century book of hours commissioned by a lineage given to a mournful outlook. Following the death of her father, Charles the Bold, Mary of Burgundy became the wealthiest woman in Europe. Opinion shifts as to weather it was commissioned to mark his death or the agreement of her marriage to Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor. The opening 54 pages align to the rarefied and extremely bleak Black books of hours grouping, suggesting it was at first intended to mourn her father and later became a doury. Ceoil (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * The source link used for most of the images is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not found anything on the wayback machine, and the images are are not replaceable from other sources. What are the options here; withdrawal? Id prefer that to removing all the 500 year old pd reproductions. Ceoil (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not possible to find any other source that includes these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, done now; replace most, and removed a small few. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Lingzhi:
 * I would prefer to see "Kren & Mckendrick" formatting style used in the refs rather than "Kren; McKendrick". Use of the semicolon in the latter could easily be mistaken for two separate references.
 * In refs, does "Ingo" refer to Ingo Walther (Walther, Ingo)?
 * Missing ref for " Jenni; Thoss"
 * In Sources but not Notes: Campbell. Stokstad. Wiek. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have worked through these. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
I intend to review the content, but I'm dealing with sources first.
 * The references in the footnotes would be better formatted consistently with the rest, e.g. rather than "See Kren, 21"
 * Refs 5 and 37: page ranges should have ndashes not hyphens, per MoS
 * The language of foreign sources should be stated (Ulrike & Thoss)
 * The format of the Miller book is unclear and/or incomplete. Is this the book in question? "H. Miller" appears to be the publisher rather than the author/translator.
 * location missing from the Woods book

Otherwise, sources look in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian. These have now been resolved. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

 * "It was probably commissioned for Mary of Burgundy, then the wealthiest women in contemporary Europe" - what does contemporary Europe refer to? It's not linked or anything, so I don't follow
 * "Its production began around 1470" - Can't begin "around a date", I'd prefer "about" here instead or "circa".
 * "The book has been described as "undoubtedly...among the most important works of art made in the late middle ages...a milestone in the history of art and one of the most precious objects of the late middle ages".[3]" - Shouldn't you bracket the ellipses [...]? Minor nitpick I suppose
 * "and believed intended to mark Charles' death at the Battle of Nancy on 5 January 1477" - something about two verbs next to each other perturbs me
 * "The book of mourning theory" - I get what you're going for here, but I'd tweak it a bit since this reads like a discursive theory rather than a theory about the book itself
 * " Traditionally, pearls represent purity, a transparent veil signifies virtue, while red carnations were often used as symbols of love.[" - I'd add an "and" after purity
 * "Most attention is given to the innovative images" - I'd watch the passive voice here
 * "The text is preoccupied with the rituals of the only a, the litany and the rites of intercessory prayer." - the only a?
 * "seemingly viewed through a contemporary windowsill" - I'd drop the adverb

Always such a pleasure to read your work, Ceoil. This is a well-written and engaging account. Once these comments are addressed, I'll be happy to support.  ceran  thor 15:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ceranthor, working through these, most are resolved. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Support  ceran  thor 00:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comment from Tim riley
I hope these points are helpful. –  Tim riley  talk    18:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Commission
 * First line – here we have the possessive form Charles' – American style; later we have Charles's – British style. Best to stick with one or the other.
 * "the most wealthy heiress" – I think "the wealthiest heiress" would be a more usual construction. Likewise with "the most wealthy nobility" later in the section.
 * Attribution
 * "to carry some of the lettering" – missing an "out", I think.
 * "van Lathem is attributed" – is it correct to use the lower-case "v" at the start of a sentence?
 * Design
 * "the rituals of the only a, the litany" – something has gone off the rails here, and I can't work out what the intended meaning was.
 * "are painting in such a way" – are painted in such a way? And this sentence veers from plural to singular rather confusingly: we need "the marginalia and drolleries … were sprinkled"; and "in a three dimensional manner that suggests…"
 * Miniatures
 * "viewed through a contemporary windowsill" – I don't think one can see through a windowsill ("a ledge or shelf forming the bottom part of a window frame" – OED). Just "window" is wanted here, I think.
 * "innovator in bring about" - innovator in bringing about?
 * Virgin and Child
 * "what seems to be the words" – perhaps "what seem to be the words"
 * "She is positioned an intimate" – missing an "in" I'd guess.
 * "shutted by boards" – shuttered by boards?
 * "without the usual intersession of saint" – I think we need "intercession" here, and perhaps an indefinite article before "saint".
 * "the figures scale and plasticity" – seems to be missing a possessive apostrophe: figures'.
 * "which as a very small panel painting, is yet" – I'd either lose the comma or add one to open the subordinate clause after "which".
 * "The figure's distance" – plural possessive figures' needed here, I think.
 * "that they are rendering" – that they are rendered?
 * Hi Tim, yes very helpful, and resolved now I think. Thanks very much for the review. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The subject is so far out of my ken that I am diffident about expressing an opinion, but I mustn't sit on the fence: so, from an absolutely lay viewpoint I thought it clear, comprehensive and well and widely sourced. And of course beautifully illustrated. I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course, and I add my support.  Tim riley  talk    15:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tim, for the review and edits. Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Johnbod
Nice article generally. I've done some touches. Points:
 * at the start it might be good to use some form of "luxury", the technical term for this sort of lavishly illustrated book. Perhaps "is a luxury book of hours completed in Flanders".
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "No records survive as to its commission, but it was probably intended for private devotion." - seems unnecessary caution, as it was certainly "intended for private devotion", plus a bit of showing off to intimates.
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "It was probably commissioned for Mary of Burgundy,..." - maybe work in the alternative, or say it was certainly for one of the Habsburg/Valois family. I can't see any mention of heraldry in the book, btw, beyond "recurring pairs of gold armorial shields". What arms are on them, if any?
 * "where the gold and sliver lettering is etched on black tainted parchment" - not etching surely? Just written in the normal way? Or another technique, like gilding? Black books of hours is not very clear on this.
 * "Given their novel visual appeal, they were probably more expensive and highly prized than more conventional books of hours, ..." - more unnecessary caution, I'd have thought, given the text is in gold and silver.
 * yes, have clarified on this. The boasting bit is yet to go it. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "14 initialised initials" - what they? Not historiated initials?
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The text is preoccupied with the litany and the rites of intercessory prayer." - there's a better way to put this.
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Obsecro te Domina sancta maria, a common biblical passage in contemporary illuminated manuscript illustrations of donors venerating the Virgin and Child" is not "biblical", but a "popular prayer of indulgence" - see here - I think always found in a prominent location in books of hours, I forget exactly where. Would be good to tie that down - I can help if needed. It is the place in the text next to which any donor portrait is likely to be found, which you don't exactly say, or not clearly.
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The window before her has two doors, shuttered by boards adorned with stained glass." Phrasing - windows don't have "doors" I think, and these aren't shutters, are they? The glass seems plain, of the round "bottle" or "bulls-eye" type beloved of mock-Tudor.
 * Have removed stained. And shutters. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Does anybody say anything about the carpet? An interesting, apparently non-Oriental, design.
 * Yes I am interested in this too. Unfortunately, so far the only book I've found that mentions cost €350, and doesn't deliver to Ireland. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Partial success: have been unable to find anything further on the carpet, but have added detail on some of the other accouterments and architectural features. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor, acquired the book around 1580." - ie at the age of about 13. Presumably it was given him as a personal prayer book when he reached a suitable age, from the family collection. Does anybody say this? How do we know? Is there an inscription?
 * Actually he was c.23 I see. Johnbod (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Our article on the Austrian National Library is not highly clear, but it seems that in the 1720s it was still the Imperial Library, at best semi-nationalized, and housed in the Hofburg Palace. In other words the book always passed within the Habsburgs until their collections were donated to the Austrian nation, with a brief period as Napoleonic loot. If possible from the sources, this point should be made more clear. At present it sounds rather as if Matthias & later the library picked it up from bookstalls or something.
 * More later. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the observations and edits John. Am traveling ATM, but will be able to get to these over the coming days. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No ruish at all! Me too - all the best for the holidays, Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, made a few more changes- happy to support. Johnbod (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always John. Ceoil (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.