Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Léal Souvenir/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC).

Léal Souvenir

 * Nominators: Ceoil, Kafka Liz 23:128, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the most penetrating and careful represntations of a late medieval prole, even one so seemingly highly placed. Jan van Eyck signed and datd this oil on oak in 1432, leading the way for secular portraiture across centuries. But even this is to undersell the painting; there is a lot more bubbling underneeth the surface, given the apparent empathy in this man's expressive face. Co-nom with Kafka Liz who knows things about ancient languages and symbols I dont. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)''

Image review
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * Fixed. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * File:Tombstone_of_C._Vetienus_Urbiqus.jpg: since this is a 3D work, the photographer also holds a copyright - what is the licensing status of the photo?
 * Unknon photographer, unknown date. We might have to loose this, looking for alternatives. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * File:Portrait_of_Baudouin_de_Lannoy_c1435.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:DufayBinchois.jpg and its sources File:Guillaume_Dufay.jpg and File:Binchois2.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Those aren't the sources for DufayBinchois.jpg. Two images that only show small parts of the image that they are claimed to be sources for can't, in fact, be the source. Where's the rest of the image come from? For that matter, they don't look much like the relevant bits of DufayBinchois. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Added these. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Quick comment: Per WP:LEAD, 4 paragraphs is a bit much. It takes up about 22% of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, why not use File:Jan van Eyck 092 (big).jpg? This appears to be the version on the National Gallery's website. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've chopped the lead somewhat, and replaced the lead image with the NG version, which, yes has better colourisation. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment
 * Sorry to butt in, I didn't see Nikki and Crisco already doing the image review. One more point though: File:Follower of Jan van Eyck Marco Barbarigo.jpg is obviously "PD-art|PD-old-100", but still needs some source information (ideally a link, or a brief description of the file origin). GermanJoe (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi GermanJoe, good catch. Added that now. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose comments (Crisco 1492)
 * The stone parapet contains three separate layers of inscriptions, each painted in an illusionistic manner to give the impression that they had been chiseled into stone. - Avoid repeating "stone"?
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * letters "Léal Souvenir" (Loyal Memory) - letters or words?
 * Apart from the dual portraits of the donors in his Ghent Altarpiece which were probably completed in 1431 or in the early months of the following year - source?
 * Bit of OR here; Ghent is his earliest ascribed panel, and it has a portrait. Also it was "completed in 1431...". Tried to find a source that says this all in one, but its a low value statement, might just remove. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 8mm - worth using a convert template?
 * Coverted Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The oak panel consists of one board, vertical in grain and about 8mm thick. It is tightly cut at the edges of the paint surface, while at some point the support was cut in eight pieces. - didn't you just say this in the preceding paragraph?
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Its - Your previous subject was "Infrared photography", which I doubt is the "its" you mean
 * original colour hard to read - is "read" the best term here?
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Standardise whether you put periods after the c in circa (compare text and caption)
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dab links: canon, Lucchese
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The first was on copper, an exact replica or original was found by Eastlake in the collection of the Lochis family of Bergamo in Italy. - not sure what you're saying here
 * yikes. fixed. Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * over two horizontal - two horizontal whats?
 * Removed Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * During the 19th century it appears in the collection of the Scottish landscape painter Karl Ross; there are records of a sale from him in 1857. - shouldn't this be in the second paragraph of this section? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dup links: Erwin Panofsky, parapet, Erwin Panofsky, Bergamo, and Turin
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * sound Crisco, working, slowly through these. Ceoil (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the (really delayed!) feedback; I don't seem to have watchlisted this. The current revision is considerably better than the one I reviewed, and it looks ready to be promoted. Like Adam, I expect that the issue with the Greek can be worked out soon (at the very least, before this hits the MP). As such, I'm glad to support this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers Crisco. Adam is on it, and I feel confident that it will be sorted out soon. He has been a great help so far. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment and image review by Adam Cuerden
This badly needs a proofreading. I've just caught two very big typos in the handling of the Greek ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A9al_Souvenir&diff=630324531&oldid=630319617 ), which weren't even consistent [Timotheus in first sentence, the theta appeared in a different transcription. Perhaps it's just the Greek, but it's not a good sign. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Other issues: "The middle inscription contains the letters "Léal Souvenir" (Loyal Memory)," - Technically, it says "LEAL SOVVENIR" - I'd give the actual text, THEN convert to standard lettering. Also, what language is it? Latin? If it's Latin, where's the é coming from?

As for the images:
 * File:201005151356 NE CSM Pancuius.jpg - Should probably have an English translation of the file description page (keeping the German, of course)
 * File:Portrait of Baudouin de Lannoy c1435.jpg - Should probably have the border with the computer-added text cropped.
 * File:DufayBinchois.jpg - Source, as given, is nonsense. Should probably have an Information template.

Otherwise, the images are fine. Oppose for the moment - we need to fix up that DufayBinchois image, and I'd like to know what's going on with the inconsistencies, and think knowing the language of the title matters. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * all noted, and thinking. It's worth saying that the sources contradict each other, with Campbell IMO the most authorative and he does speak in meta at times, ie gives an overview, with refutations. The difficulty is that van eyck did not have a command of the languages, and made errors, which we had reproduced, but you 'copy edited'. Ceoil (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I looked at the image. That's clearly a theta, not an O on the artwork. "TγΜ.ωΟΕΟς" is patently wrong. I could understand discussion about the Sigma at the end, as it's weirdly shaped on the artwork, but if we're going to pretend an omnicron translates as th, but isn't a theta, and that, of two completely different figures on the artwork, both the theta and the omnicron are omnicrons, that's just patently wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * actually we are pretending nothing, just reading, interpreting and thinking. If you want to be cute I will ignore you from now and carry on. You can either help and be construive or be defensive and aggressive. Don't really care, because I hadn't asked you a question. No to what. [User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * your comments, position, refractoring and temperament is noted, but this is not a simple matter, and is being addressed, but I hope not within the glare of such an aggressive reviewer. Noted adam, now get lost, and I will post back when I am happy that this is resolved. Ok? Ceoil (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what the hell brought that on? If you're so sensitive that simply pointing out obvious-to-those-who-have-learnt-the-language errors in transcription of Byzantine Greek causes you to tell the reviewer to "get bent", "Get a grip", and even an attempted outing that would probably have worked better if everyone and their brother didn't know I used to edit under a pseudonym, one has to ask how you expect to get through an FAC. We may as well close this, because the nominator clearly isn't interested in dealing with the problems. There's quite a few issues in this article's handling of foreign languages, such as "It reads " LÉAL SOVVENIR " (Loyal Remembrance, or Faithful Souvenir)" - well, no, it doesn't. there isn't an accent mark on the painting. You can't state things are on the painting that quite simply aren't there, but when such things are pointed out, you're throwing a fit, and devolving into insulting the reviewer for no apparent reason. If you can't handle polite criticism, you shouldn't be here. I'm not going to drop the oppose, because the problems still haven't been dealt with; but I'm washing my hands of this article, as I don't want to deal with the nominator. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment:
 * , about the lettering: I think this file (the first page is visible) gives a good sense of how very difficult it is to write about Jan van Eyck's inscriptions. Suggest giving the nominators a chance to re-read the sources and sort it out. It's never easy with JvE (I looked at a few sources yesterday and they were all contradictory) - there isn't a deadline. Victoria (tk) 11:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Victoria. Guys, please just try to see the other's perspective. Ceoil, you may have found Adam's comments a bit overbearing but reviewers are here to help and there are other ways of asking for space without telling them to get lost. Adam, your oppose is helpful for the coordinators to judge your level of concern, so you can afford to give the nominators a chance to act on the comments in their own time. Consensus to promote is best reached through collegial discussion. Thanks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * that's fair. I will not answer this person again, his oppose is welcome to stand, and his slander noted. I've always enjoyed the ruff and tuble of a challenging review, but something is very off here. The how dare you tone is one reveal, there are others. Yours in scumines, as stands on Ian's talk. Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You tried to out me. What the hell did you expect? I'm happy to keep this focused on the article, but you have acted abominably, and haven't shown the slightest sign of remorse for something WP:OUTING says should get you blocked. I don't want you blocked. It's a very open secret, and I've made the connection publicly a few times - but you apparently didn't know that, because you had absolutely no reason to bring it up. If you recognise your behaviour has been completely inappropriate, we can work on improving the article. But as it stands, you have shown no ability to handle minor criticisms of your article, and shouldn't be here if you're not actually interested in improving it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Adam Cuerden, I didnt know it, no. It was off the cuff, nothing behind it. Um, can we start again, considering there was no beef between us before this. I think Ian's advice is sound. If you were hurt or offended, thats not good, and I now apologise and retract. I felt somewhat dissed by your review comments, but I suppose, so what. The fact is, I would like your help on this article. I think its a very moving portrait, and would libe to give it exposure on the main page, in the best condition it can be in. You have knowledge. Deal? 12:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, deal. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the main problem is that File:DufayBinchois.jpg has more in it (the text at the top) than the two files listed as its source. It's obviously inaccurate, but it's not quite clear what's going on, and it's a bit of a blocker. I'm trying to decide if it was just really terribly documented - if we presume that the "sources" are "related images", then we can presume that the source is the book listed - but it would be good to know the image source - but I think it may have been cropped... Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

 * wanna hyphen in "inward looking" and "vertically cut"?
 * Tks Cas, as I recall we don't hyphenate after "ly" though... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 *  Today its varnish is severely degraded - "today" redundant here
 * Fixed Kafka Liz (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * link Infrared photography somehwere
 * Done. Kafka Liz (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * link bourrelet and cornette too
 * Done by Ceoil. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Descriptors for Panofsky and Danens at first mention
 * This is now done. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support on comprehensiveness and prose. a good read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Victoriaearle
Otherwise looks good to me. Victoria (tk) 15:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made a few edits; please feel free to revert anything that you don't agree with.
 * The description of pigments (red lake, etc) and fingers is repeated at the bottom of the "Description" and at the bottom of the "Portrait" - probably best to combine somehow
 * I've had a look at a few sources regarding the inscriptions and in my view everything that can be said is being said here: basically no one really understands the inscriptions but there has been plenty of speculation.
 * I've removed the accent from LEAL SOVVENIR - either JvE decided not to use it or it wasn't used in 15th cent French; but all the sources agree that is French, as indicated in the article. Sources seem to be split about 50/50 whether the accent is used in the title. fwiw.
 * I thought about suggesting italics for the foreign language words (and quotes for the translations) but I'm thinking for this article it's probably best not to follow that convention because "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟς" is enough of a mystery without giving it a slant.

Support - after really thinking about how to handle the Greek lettering and reading the article mentioned below (much of which is taken into account in the text). Elisabeth Dhanens has the final Greek letter as a character that looks to me like a squared off C, and the lead here says "The first inscription is in a form of Greek and seems to spell "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟς", which has not been satisfactorily interpreted but has inspired some to title the work Timotheus" (emphasis mine), so maybe mention too in the body that the final letter is difficult to read and perhaps a note about the various interpretations. Anyway, other than the small bit of repetition, no other quibbles. Victoria (tk) 19:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the edits and support. Re the accent; its odd that the NG gives Léal, but have decided agaist a page move, per commonname. I did toy with renaming it TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC, but life is too short. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I agree that it's odd about the accent, but no, I wouldn't do a page move. It's in enough sources with the accent. Victoria (tk) 22:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Happy Halloween. I posted some musings about the inscriptions on the talk page nearly 18 months ago. I'm not sure if they have been taken into account already or quietly dismissed (no doubt we should be comparing and contrasting what the sources say about the inscription, rather than adding our own glosses anyway). The article I mentioned - Paviot - may be helpful, but perhaps it has already been included indirectly through the existing citations?  -- Theramin (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Square Sigma. He's known to have used it. Though that atrticle also mentions an interesting suggestion where the last letter is interpreted as an N, giving a Greek phrase. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, square sigma, now added. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Article now gives "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC" in the lead, and later reads, The top lettering is in chalk white, and contains the Greek script "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC", however the last character is deliberately concealed by a chip in the imitation stone, a device described by Panofsky as a "terminal flourish".[25] This makes it difficult to discern, with a general consensus among art historians that it is a square C or sigma sign. Campbell cautions that the fact that the inscription is in Greek indicates that it's meaning was probably intended "to be obscure", and that there may be a significant reason why the final character is partially illegible. He cautions that it would be "rash to attempt to supply the missing verb".[26]. Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also added - Art historian Lorne Campbell points out that van Eyck "appears to have employed the Greek alphabet systematically", and always employed the square sigma C for the Latin "S", and a majuscule omega ω (in the uncial form) for the Latin "O".[26].
 * The Paviot article found by Theramin is excellent, both for reviewing existing research and speculation, and throwing new light. Ceoil (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to rely a little too heavily on Campbell; it'd be nice to include the TγΜω ΘΕΟν "I honour God" interpretation from http://www.jstor.org/stable/750257 - even while mentioning this is doubtful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added...Panofsky considers the hypothesis the the final letter is a "N", and that the lettering forms two words rather than one. In this interpretation, the letters spell TγΜΩ ΘΕΟN, meaning "Honour God". While he admires the convience of the interpretation, and the fact that it would make interpretation more straight forward than if we accept "Timotheus", he rejects the posibility. He writes that "the presence of a shorter horizontal line connecting with the slightly tapering top of the vertical stroke and completing it into a Γ form... evidently precludes a "N".[29]. I wonder am I correct in using "Γ"? Ceoil (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One more thing - this is a technical issue, but I'm a little worried that we may be mixing Greek letters and similar non-Greek letters, in ways that could be very confusing for screenreaders. To be fair, this is a very, very hard thing to do - lunate sigma, for example, isn't a standard character, much less square sigma. Would &#1017; be too likely to fail? Of course, there's a lot of awkwardness in transcribing very bad Greek - the lower-case gamma, γ, is arguably better transcribed as Υ, because not one source gives it a value of "g" in transcription. Upsilon, though, is shapped like a Y in upper case, and that's what the sources seem to be using?.
 * The second level of awkward is that TMOEN [Latin alphabet] and ΤΜΟΕΝ (Greek alphabet) are actually different characters in Unicode. For example, compare clicking on Ν and N - and, no, I didn't pipe the link text, that's just the letters linked. As I said, though, this is VERY bad Greek, mixing upper and lower cases, so we need to decide how accurate to get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support A really good read. I made some minor corrections; looks good...Modernist (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Modernist. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's try to figure out Greek
There's a lot of inconsistencies in how this article handles Greek. If we can sort these out, I'm actually quite happy to support, but, as it is, if you know the Greek alphabet, there's a lot of little errors and inconsistencies.

We have TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC, which appears several times, and TγΜΩ ΘΕΟN, which appears once.

First of all, γ is lower-case gamma. From the way the articles are transliterating it, it has to be Upsilon, Y [Or, more properly, Υ - yes, they look identical, but we'll get to that]. If it's γ, then the phrase becomes something like Tgmotheos when transliterated - Y gives Tymotheos or Tumotheos, depending on transliteration; Timotheos is within acceptable bounds of dealing with bad Greek. - Checked three sources, one used an explicit Upsilon, two used Y. Made the change.

Secondly, TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC and TγΜΩ ΘΕΟN are not as different as you're making them look. Ω is an upper-case ω. Consistency really is necessary here. Made the change.

Thirdly,  The letters following the punctuation probably read ' THEOS '  - this is just wrong. Θ is TH, ωΘΕΟC  is OTHEOS, and if you're translating, you may as well go to lower-case. "theos" is, indeed, Greek for God, or, more properly, "god". Also, this is complete notSee Paviot 215 Original research, but O is basically the Greek word for "the". ω ΘΕΟC is the vocative. http://www.foundalis.com/lan/definart.htm - the vocative addresses someone.
 * Added a note, but we need a source. Found LOTS of errors when I checked sources in this section - please recheck Campbell. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"The "o" probably indicates the past tense" - this really, really doesn't make much sense as written. The "o" probably indicates the past tense; put together the inscription may read "Timotheus, Then God" - what? - I don't know what scholar said that, but they can't know much Greek; the greek articles - O and ω being two of them that can be attached to Theos - are basically one of the first things you're taught. Or you're misinterpreting it. But that's... I really don't get it. Hell, in Greek grammar, ending a verb in ω is basically the first-person present. I don't have advanced Greek knowledge, but... I'd really want a LOT more text before accepting that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole section this was part of wasn't in the sources! No clue where it came from. Deleted and added some material from the source that had related material. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fourthly, we can probably get away with T for tau, O for omicron and so on, but maybe we shouldn't? ΤΥΜ.ωΘΕΟ- looks the same, but is probably more accurate. I've added a -. I'll come to that.

Fifthly, there's a unicode character for the lunate sigma that's as near as we can get to square sigma. It's &#1017; 	 - but I'm a bit worried on this one, as basic Greek is really, really widely supported, because of its use in maths and physics. Things like the lunate sigma? Not quite so much. On the other hand, C isn't particularly accurate. We may be best off just using ς, and explaining about square sigma earlier. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian specifically asked me to make my views on whether something should pass clear, after the incident where me not doing so led to something accidentally being promoted with a copyvio image which got to the main page. So oppose, because I think anyone with even a little bit of Greek will find this one aspect of the article really problematic, but we should be able to fix it, and the article is good outside of the Greek. But... well, see above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did, tks, I'll walk through recent comments when I get a chance. In the meantime though, one bolded oppose is enough -- I assume the original one has been overtaken by this, so could you strike or unbold the first pls, Adam? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, although we do need to fix the image mentioned there. I still haven't figured that one out, although I think I might have a plan. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment - the image is from Martin le Franc's, "Champion des Dames", created in Arras in 1451. I dumped a comment about it over on article talk. The image has been removed from the article, though it's of a 570 plus year old page from an illuminated mss. Re the Greek: I ran the article through the screen-reader on my computer and it read all the Greek characters properly and "C" as "C". I ran the comment above with the unicode character through the screen reader and it skipped right over it (in other words, ignored, didn't recognize). I think if we can't create the character that looks like an "E" without the middle line, then we just can't, nor should we try to substitute with another character. My final remark is simply that we have to follow the sources. All the sources say the final letter is hard to distinguish, then various interpretations are given, and then various translations. But basically no-one is certain. I don't think our article can go beyond what is in the sources. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but, at the same time, the sources are a bit confused. If I'll be forgiven for not using proper Greek characters where unnecessary:
 * http://www.jstor.org/stable/750257 gives TYM.ΩθEO- [describing the missing letter]. that is, using a capital Upsilon, not a lower case gamma, but converting the lower-case omega of the painting to an upper-case one for some reason. It does, however, use C for square sigma later.
 * Paviot and Wood, rather horrifyingly, uses TYM.WθEOC - that W is meant to be a lower-case Omega. Let's not follow their example.
 * Also, when I checked sources - I literally couldn't find some of the claims cited to them, particularly the one I objected to. I only have access to the journal sources, but can the section "Inscriptions and identity of sitter" please be rechecked carefully, because two different sources were misrepresented in it. Both Paviot and Wood's interesting points are mangled, in particular, two separate ideas on Paviot 214-5 were mangled together in ways that completely change the argument. I can help out a bit, but when two of the sources I can check were completely mangled in the move to the article, I think we need to check all the sources related to the Greek in that section, because - to put bluntly - it was completely and totally wrong in several claims according to the cited sources. I'm also 100% convinced this is nothing more than an error produced from not knowing the Greek alphabet, without which the complicated arguments would be very, very hard to follow. Ceoil knows what they're doing. If you can e-mail me the relevant bits of Campbell, and any other sources talking about the Greek inscription that aren't the JSTOR sources, I will personally make sure that that section is fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds just great. I'll photocopy the pages from Campbell at work tomorrow and send on scans. It seems many of the subtitlies of your initial objection were lost on me. I have a good grasp of the history, incongraphy, context etc of the painting, but as you say not the the Greek alphabet. Thanks to you and Victoria both for stepping in. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the talk page. Victoria (tk) 03:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * File:DufayBinchois.jpg has source info added. Couldn't find an actual link to the file at BnF but the book is there; I found mention of it.
 * Sorted Paviot, Wood, and Dhanens,.
 * Commented out Campbell for now, . If the book is anything like the size of Dhanens, it's hard to make copies & scans, but sounds like Ceoil is trying. The other points in that section from Campbell are in line with what's said in other sources, so imo, should be fine. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While I still think we need to do this, I'm also convinced it's going to get done. So long as it's not going to be rushed onto the main page, I really don't want my opposition causing this to be closed as not promoted, so am striking it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Commenting out the Campbell quote seems like the sensible thing to me, until we get this sorted. Adam, no it wont be rushed to main page, not until you are happy with the section. Ceoil (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.