Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portrait of Mariana of Austria/archive1

Portrait of Mariana of Austria

 * Nominator(s): Ceoil  (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not one of Diego Velázquez's most heavy weight paintings, but a favorite for those interested in 17th century clothes and fashion...we do exist:) There is drama here, she married young, in a rush and ill advisedly, born out by her unhappy pout in this and later portraits. Feedback gratefully appreciated. Ceoil  (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review
No ALT text that I can see but image placement is reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Mariana of Austria (1634–1696), Queen of Spain (MET).jpg: The license should probably be changed to PD-100.
 * Done Nikki Jo-Jo will address . Ceoil  (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just so to be clear, * File:Mariana of Austria (1634–1696), Queen of Spain (MET).jpg: The license should probably be changed to PD-100. was from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm loosing it - yes and thanks. Am working through alt text. Ceoil  (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, PD100 added. Ceoil  (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Query by Support from WereSpielChequers
I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not, its a wiki
 * chaie? I'm guessing chair
 * " its width emphasised by the broad lace collar and the horizontal patterns of the dress's trimmed borders, and her wide collar" two collars?


 * Done. Ceoil  (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * " recorded in a 1700 inventory as a pendant to" Both paintings are about the same size. Is pendant in this context some bit of stuckist jargon?
 * what makes people think it is a gilded clock as opposed to a gold one?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi WereSpielChequers, working through these. Thanks for the copy edits. Ceoil  (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is whats intended Pendant painting, see also Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents. Ceoil  (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ceoil, I've learned a new thing about art, though I still think as a pair is shorter and more widely understandable than as a pendant. More generally I'm happy to support FA status, though I should add that the only aspects of the article that I have checked are prose quality and comprehensibility to a general reader who doesn't know the subject.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  09:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Have gone with "paired with". Ceoil  (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1
These'll be in batches over the day, I'm afraid.
 * Lead
 * "to preserve the hegemony of the Habsburg" - I wonder if this could be made a little clearer? "to preserve the hegemony of the Habsburg family" / "to secure the succession of the Habsburg dynasty", or some such.
 * Sorted, though thinking of expanding 13:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarified Ceoil  (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "As such she became Queen consort of Spain, and reigned from 1634 to 1696" - but not as Queen consort, after Philip's death in 1665. Their son's article describes her as Queen Regent. Then, I think she stopped being regent in 1675, on Charles' majority, although she continued to exercise great influence. So perhaps: "On her marriage, she became Queen consort and, at her husband's death, Queen regent during her son's minority, until his accession in 1675. After this, due to Charles II's infirmity, she continued to exercise influence until her own death in 1696."
 * agree. Done. Ceoil  (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "and a large gold brooch" - you may well disagree, in which case ignore, but I wonder of the big gold disc in the centre of her bust is best described as a brooch? I tend to think of brooches as things to the side, often for fastening, which this isn't. What about pendant? That said, I can't really tell if it's affixed to the chain in some way, or not. In the Versailles portrait, it clearly is, but in the MET portrait, I think it's not. Maybe best to stick with brooch!
 * We don't really know, so have left open / ambiguous. Ceoil  (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is addressed. Would appreciate a rered. Ceoil  (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "the rather dramatically drawn curtain was painted over by another hand" - I'm not quite getting this. Does it mean that Velázquez originally drew a curtain, which somebody else subsequently embellished? Or does it mean that there was no curtain originally and one was added later by another artist? Do the sources tell us?
 * see above Ceoil  (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that it was not in Vel's original painting. Ceoil  (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "an emphasis on bright hues against dark backgrounds, extravagant head-dress, and fashionably wide dresses" - "an emphasis on bright hues against dark backgrounds, extravagant head-dresses, and fashionably wide costumes"?
 * Description
 * "with every attempt made to convey a sense of her majesty" - as she's not previously been mentioned in this section, I wonder if "with every attempt made to convey a sense of the queen's/Marianna's majesty"?
 * Removed Ceoil  (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "her black dress, which is at least given pictorial space" - not getting what the "at least" is trying to say here?
 * Reworded Ceoil  (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "that wilful, mulish German" - not sure why the last bit of the quote is italicised? Is it a quote within a quote?
 * I think because I like the quote very much, having a lot of German family and friends, and at one time, prob late at night though...I could have put it that way. Ceoil  (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "The overhanging curtain was painted over by another hand.[14]" - see my query in the lead. Oddly, Cite 14 is taking me to another picture entirely within the Prado collection. Think this must be an error?
 * Yes; removed. Ceoil  (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "She holds a lace scarf in her left hand" - you call this a handkerchief in the Lead. Not sure which is best?
 * See above Ceoil  (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Commission and dating
 * "that his courtly duties hindered his available time for painting" - perhaps, "that his courtly duties limited the time he could devote to painting"?
 * Done Ceoil  (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "and Felipe Prospera" - I think it's "Felipe Prospero".
 * done Ceoil  (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "to return to Madrid as soon as possible to completed the work" - "complete".
 * done Ceoil  (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Last para. of this section - this confused me a bit. It starts by talking about Marianna's portraits, but ends (last two sentences) talking about portraits of Maria Theresa and Margaret Theresa. As such, the "her" and "she" threw me a bit as I wasn't sure whether they were referring to the mother or to one of the daughters. Moreover, the fifth sentence is definitely about Maria, while the sixth is about Margaret, so I don't think the "She" is right. Would it be possible to clarify.
 * Gallery
 * The Infanta Maria portrait - Other than that it's another Velázquez, I'm not quite getting the relevance of this one. I'd probably put in the full Las Meninas portrait, which you don't have. As it shows Mariana, and is mentioned in the article, I'd suggest it has greater relevance.
 * Was trying to show the progression of his later portraits of royalty, which to me are his supreme achievements. I think he got there by trial and error; they became progressively better, which was what was trying to convey. I think the ghostly Portrait of the Infanta Maria Theresa of Spain is the best of these, but seem understudied., hense not at FAC. The galley has been trimmed since by a FU bot, not in favour of trimming further, as the paintings have to be taken in context. Ceoil  (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Have trimmed this. Ceoil  (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Notes
 * Note 2 - isn't this actually a Footnote, rather than a reference?
 * Done Ceoil  (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note 14 - as indicated in Description above, this seems to be a misdirect. I think you need this.
 * done Ceoil  (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources
 * "Mazo's 'Queen Mariana of Spain in Mourning'". London: National Gallery Technical Bulletin, Volume 26, 2005 - I think the third author's name is the wrong way round. She's Marika (forename) Spring (surname), and thus should list as "Spring, Marika".
 * done Ceoil  (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ortiz, Dominguez Antonio. Velázquez. New York: Harry N Abrams, 1990 - I think his surname is Dominguez Ortiz, with Antonio as his forename. This would agree with your alphabetic listing.
 * sorted now. Ceoil  (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

That's all from me. A fascinating article, made even more interesting for me personally as I first read it while in Spain. Pleased to Support when you've had a chance to consider the comments/suggestions. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks KJP for the feedback. Starting now to address. Ceoil  (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think I have all of these sorted; you might give another look when you have a chance. Thanks once again. Ceoil  (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - She's looking good, and I'm pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate all the help. Ceoil  (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Ewulp
I think the matter of the curtain needs some clarification; otherwise nothing but a few style quibbles:


 * "the rather dramatically drawn curtain was added by another hand." (Lead section): I'd change it to something like "The upper part of the rather dramatically drawn curtain", otherwise it sounds as if the whole curtain was painted or overpainted by another artist, which as far as I can tell is not what sources say.
 * Yes good point, done Ceoil  (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * In the same vein, in "Provenance and copies" Velázquez is said to have extended the canvas at the top; Georgia Mancini (in Carr) says that "a hand other than Velázquez added a piece of canvas to the top of the original composition and painted the upper part of the curtain" sometime before 1700 to match the size of Philip’s portrait.
 * I'm not finding this, do you have a link. useful. Ceoil  (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's in Carr on p 226; online there's just enough of the relevant text visible here. Ewulp (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. Added now. Ceoil  (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Housed in the Museo del Prado, its subject, Dona Mariana, known as Maria Anna, was the daughter of Emperor Ferdinand III and the Infanta Maria Anna of Spain." (Lead section) Taken by itself, that sentence seems to say that Dona Mariana is housed in the Prado rather than her portrait.
 * Sorted. Ceoil  (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "15th December 1651" (Lead): an adjustment would eliminate ordinal per MOS:DATE.
 * Edited Ceoil  (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "The painting is composed from harmonious shades of whites, blacks and reds." I’ve read the article through a few times in the last week and the from always clanks; I'd go with of. I thought perhaps it was just me but there is evidence that this is an unusual usage.
 * Done. Ceoil  (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an engaging article that I look forward to supporting for FA. Ewulp (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Ewulp, re-reading the sources and hope to address issues around the curtain this afternoon. Will let you know. Ceoil  (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think its ready now for another look. I may need clarity re the point on the curtain above.  Ceoil  (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you rake another look Ewulp pls; have had a close look a the attribution of upper part of the curtain, and I hope clarified. Ceoil  (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I've just removed a duplicate (I think) title from "Sources", as I'm pretty sure the same Met catalogue of 1989 was listed twice. There remains some confusion in a few of the refs: should the citations to "Gállego (1989)" be amended to "Ortiz, Gallego (1989)" or to ""Gállego (1984)"? Ewulp (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok caught this. The error seems to be related to contributors vs editors. Ceoil  (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Mariana had extravagant taste in clothes and jewellery, but her married life was pressured by the need to produce a male heir." The pressure to produce a male heir is discussed twice already in "Background" & seems repetitive here; probably better simplified to something like: "Mariana's extravagant taste in clothes and jewellery is evident, but a modern view is that she..." Ewulp (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, and cut and rephrased per your suggestion. Ceoil  (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks great: Full support. Ewulp (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * I would put the word "Austria" somewhere in the first half of the first "Background" paragraph.
 * "Philip sought Mariana, " I doubt if he went a-wooing. Maybe something like "Philip negotiated for Mariana's hand in marriage" or whatever the sources will support.
 * "highly pressurised" maybe, "under great pressure"?
 * There seems to be unsourced material, for example the last sentence of "Background"
 * "She is has an unusually rigid and stiff pose;" some small problem near the start of this I think.
 * "Her dress is extensively lined with silver braids and decorated with red ribbon.[2]" I might lead the paragraph with this. Also you might want to break up the somewhat repetitive sentence beginnings, "Her ..."
 * "Her left hand holds large and elaborately folded white cloth," Either an "a" missing or it needs to be "cloths"
 * "Velázquez was then the Spanish crown painter, having been Aposentador mayor del Palacio (officer in charge of palace lodging) since 1652.[18] " I took this to mean that this was the title held by the Spanish crown painter, but the following sentences suggest that his duties were distinct from painting. Some clarification might help.
 * "He accepted the commission" that is, for the Mariana painting.
 * "in life Mariana was vivacious and fun loving.[24][10]" You've told the reader this before. Also, refs may be not in order.
 * "From this, we can infer that the painting was completed at least before this date.[23]" You might move "at least" to before "infer" or better yet omit it.
 * Looks pretty good.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt, working through these. Ceoil  (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Now all resolved. Ceoil  (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , are you good with the above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Support From a hasty re-read, looks much better.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you. Ceoil  (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

 * "Mariana was born on 21 December 1634 in Wiener Neustadt, Austria, as the second child of Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor and of Philip IV of Spain's sister Maria Anna of Spain. Her parents had six children..." -- Maria's or Mariana's?
 * Maria's. Done. Ceoil  (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Realising that the hegemony of the Halsburg dynasty was at stake,[6] Philip negotiated to marry Mariana..." Negotiated seems like the wrong word here, unless it was a business deal. "Planned"?
 * It was absolutely a 'business' deal. see worse re her son in: Habsburg Motherhood: The Power of Mariana of Austria, Queen Regent for Carlos II of Spain. She was quite the bright and able spark though. Ceoil  (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "By nature vivacious" → "Vivacious by nature".
 * done. Ceoil  (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "As Charles was infirm as a child and youth, suffering from physical disabilities, and because the Spanish monarchy had developed towards female inclusion, allowing significant rights to inheritance and succession, Mariana dominated the political life in Spain until her own death in 1696." -- overly long, and the serial comma makes it a little difficult to read.
 * "However, Velázquez seemingly conducts an in-depth examination of her character." -- Velázquez or Mariana? Sorry, it may be obvious to you and I, but it may not be to others. It then continues with the female pronoun which may only add to the confusion. It looks ambiguous because we are talking of two women.
 * done. Ceoil  (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Cassianto Talk  20:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "She has alabaster skin..." -- new para, new noun.
 * rewrote this. Ceoil  (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Her bodice accentuates her waist." -- ditto
 * "Although she had extravagant taste" -- ditto
 * "He accepted the commission for the portrait during his 1649–50 visit to Italy. -- ditto
 * "Philip's portrait is unfinished, with some sections, including the lion, described as "hardly more than sketched" -- by whom?
 * Cassianto, have all these now. Ceoil  (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Second read through


 * "Vivacious by nature, Mariana wrote that her day to day courtly duties seemed oppressive, and she was under great pressure to produce a male heir." -- where did she write this?
 * Its of historical record. Reworded so its not first hand. Ceoil  (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "the marriage was deemed a success when she gave birth to a daughter..." -- By who?
 * Presumably by Philip and his close advisers. Have reworded this slightly; but its obviously an uncontroversial inference made by historians. Ceoil  (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Mariana had a difficult life; she and Philip had not met before their marriage, and later found little in common." -- I think saying "difficult life" and then going on to give the only example of this as the problematic marriage is not illustrating the difficult life enough. A difficult marriage, sure, but some have difficult marriages, but otherwise have a good life.
 * There was constant pressure. Now reading - He was aged over 40 years, she was 19, and her bid to provide Philip with an heir, in a family whose male children tended to be sickly,[9] included a number of false hopes and miscarriages.[10] When Philip died in 1665 she became regent for her son Charles II, the last of the Spanish Habsburgs.[11][12] As Charles was infirm as a child and youth, suffering from physical disabilities, and because the Spanish monarchy had developed towards female inclusion, allowing significant rights to inheritance and succession, Mariana dominated the political life in Spain until her own death in 1696.[13] For "dominated", read coped very well, though that judgement is outside the scope of the article. Ceoil  (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Section now clearer. Ceoil  (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You have a broken ref in the first para of the "Description" section
 * I think Ewulp sorted this. Ceoil  (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "She has an unusually rigid and stiff pose; her upper body and head seem to almost suffocate underneath her black dress" -- Perhaps best to reduce the POV.
 * Ok, will make the POC bits "according to art historian" Ceoil  (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Her unusually pale skin is heavily painted in rouge, making it almost doll-like under her wig and wide head-dress." -- Again here.
 * Yes per above. Ceoil  (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "has been described as 'worthy of El Greco'". -- By who?
 * Clarified. Ceoil  (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "From this, we can at least infer that the painting was completed before this date." -- Who's "we"? Suggest reworking this.
 * Its a mathematical calculation, so have removed the "we". Ceoil  (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Cassianto Talk  21:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "in person Mariana was engaging and fun loving." -- says who?
 * Almost all surviving first hand recollections, but will clarify. Ceoil  (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, but I've been away. I have just received Ian's ping asking for an update and note the changes made above, which I thank Ceoil for. If there is a requirement to either promote or archive this now, then I'm very sorry, but at this point I'm leaning towards an oppose on the grounds of prose. It still seems to be very choppy and there are still a few pronouns leading paragraphs (see the last two in the "description" section, for example). Ive conducted a couple of edits to this now to help out somewhat, of of which is swapping a euphemism, something that really shouldn't exist in an article this close to FA. I've also rewritten a large chunk in the last paragraph in the first section, which I'd ask the nominator to check as interpretation was used in the absence of books. For example:
 * "When Ferdinand III requested a portrait of his daughter, Philip asked Velázquez to return from his 1649–50 visit to Italy to Madrid as soon as possible" -- Was he on holiday for an entire year? If not, why mention the year span at all? It gets in the way, in my opinion.  Mention when he was asked to return if you have to mention it at all.
 * the trip to Italy is very well known and often users to categorize his works...ie before, during, after. Also it indicates the importance of the work that he returned from an extended trip. Ceoil (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "The marriage presented many difficulties for the Spanish court" -- why is the court fussed about a marriage? I'm not familiar with foreign marriages in the Early Modern period, did the courts marry people?  Why not the church?  Would it have something to do with this?
 * of course the royal court is interested in securing a successor for their king. Ceoil  (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, nothing. They may well be interested, but for the reader it would be interesting to know which type of court you are talking about. There will be those not familiar with how such things work.  Cassianto Talk  08:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

shouldn't be in an article that is on the verge of promotion to FA. Please check throughly for any existing ones.
 * "From this, the painting came be assumed as finished before this date." -- typos like this
 * "They also had two sons. Felipe Próspero was the original heir to the throne, but died in 1661 aged 3 years. Charles, the future Charles II of Spain, was born later that year." Why not swap full stops for semicolons? The sentences are linked and it would flow much better.
 * done Ceoil (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

If these few things can be sorted before the time comes for the coords to make a decision, then I'd be happy to support. If not, I would ask that this article be archived.  Cassianto Talk  11:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * assumed by who?  Cassianto Talk  12:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support upon final read through and on the back of the recent changes. Anything else can be addressed post FAC.   Cassianto Talk  09:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for the thorough review which gas helped the page enormously. Ceoil  (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "Alongside her, a clock rests on scarlet drapery." It looks to me behind her.
 * Yes Ceoil  (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems odd to name her first fiancé in the lead but not her husband. PS I see that she married Philip, but this is not clear. I would just say "married" rather than "planned" in the lead and "negotiated" in the main text, which could mean that he was arranging a marriage to someone else.
 * Makes better sense. Ceoil  (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No change needed, but the rules of consanguinity were remarkably relaxed in this period. Around the year 1000, the Pope forced King Robert II of France to accept annulment of his marriage because his wife was his second cousin. In other cases, marriage to a third cousin was prohibited.
 * I may incorporate this into a note; looking for a source. Ceoil  (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would give the year of her husband's death in the lead.
 * done Ceoil  (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Accession is the wrong word. He acceded when his father died. I suggest "came of age".
 * done Ceoil  (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "(her mother Maria Anna of Spain was Philip's sister)". You said this in the previous paragraph.
 * removed Ceoil  (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You should give the year of their marriage.
 * done Ceoil  (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You mention her daughter and son who died in this paragraph, but not Charles and any other children.
 * expanded 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Mariana had a difficult life; she and Philip did not meet before their marriage, and found little in common, and she was regent to a physically weak son. Her marriage presented many difficulties for the Spanish court." Her regency is out of place in the middle of a discussion of her marriage.
 * removed and regiged. Ceoil  (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "As Charles was infirm as a child and youth, suffering from physical disabilities, and because the Spanish monarchy had developed towards female inclusion, allowing significant rights to inheritance and succession, Mariana dominated the political life in Spain until her own death in 1696." This is clumsily worded. Also, the article on Charles said that he had mental disabilities, which would have been far more important to a ruler. I suggest. "Charles was infirm as a child and youth, suffering from mental and physical disabilities, and the Spanish monarchy allowed women to play a powerful role in government, so Mariana was able to dominate the political life of Spain until her own death in 1696."
 * this wording is much better, thank you. Ceoil  (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Would "Charles was infirm throughout his life" be more accurate? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and incorporated. Ceoil  (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Although Mariana had extravagant taste in clothes and jewellery, a fact that was much commented on during her lifetime, her married life was pressured by the need to produce a male heir. A more sympathetic, modern, view is that she was a rather plain looking woman in an unhappy marriage, perhaps lacking in much of the elegance that Velázquez attributed to her." I am not clear why you are suggesting that the modern view is different. Both seem to be true from what you say.
 * Reworded but not done, there is a point to be articulated....thinking.... Ceoil  (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many duplicate links. I do not know why duplink does not highlight the second mention of Maria Theresa. You only link Philip Prospero at his second mention.
 * done Ceoil  (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "in person Mariana was engaging and fun loving" This seems to contradict some of your other comments about her. Maybe she was not so unhappy?
 * I think she was engaging by nature, but became ground down. It happens. Ceoil  (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think you need separate columns for the two notes. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Ceoil  (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all these Dudley; lots of food for thought there, and hopeful the responses that improved the page. Will let you know when am ready for you to revisit. Ceoil  (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, all addressed now, I think. Ceoil  (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes
Lots of review but currently lacking declarations of support... looking to tie up loose ends here and determine readiness. —do you have any more feedback? -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like also offered partial support, unbolded.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, though with the caveat that "the only aspects of the article that I have checked are prose quality and comprehensibility to a general reader who doesn't know the subject."  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we're about there now but not sure if we've completed a source review --, you appeared to be checking formatting, were you also signing off on reliability? If not we need someone to check that pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - pleased to pick this up but it will have to wait till tomorrow as I’m now busy opening presents. Happy Holidays! KJP1 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review
Notes
 * Just a query, and if it's a MoS thing just ignore me coz' I probably won't know what I'm talking about, but is there any reason why the page references in the notes aren't just given as citations, rather than being written out in full?
 * changed to in-line now. Ceoil  (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Citations
 * Cite 4a - If I'm being picky, while the source certainly supports the date of Balthasar Charles's death, it doesn't actually say that this was from smallpox. Nor does it support the fact that the death occurred two months after his betrothal to Mariana. I happen to know that both these facts are true, but verifiability is all! Is there another source that could be wheeled in to confirm these latter two points.
 * source says “Don Balthasar Charles died of smallpox on the 9 October 1646.” Ceoil  (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Betrothal now sourced as June 1646. Ceoil  (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - My bad! Why is the opening, where it mentions smallpox, in small print! It's like a bloody insurance document. KJP1 (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cite 21a - I think there's a copy and paste error here with the page number. On my reading, page 52 is all about painting technique, and the reference to Maria's daughter's marriage appears on page 46
 * changed now. Ceoil  (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cite 34 - this certainly takes me to the right image, that of the queen in mourning, but I'm not actually seeing Cite 34 in the text. What is it supporting? Am I missing something?
 * it’s supporting the attribution of followers/workshop and the location, and has a provenance section. Ceoil  (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources
 * Giorgia Mancini - again being uber-picky, I think the Location/Publisher order should be "London" then "National Gallery", following Ackroyd, Portus and Prohaska.
 * reworded. Ceoil  (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Silvia Mitchell - This one isn't quite clear to me. First, I think we're missing a location. I'm guessing Ashgate is these guys, Ashgate Publishing, now part of Routledge, and that the work is one in this series, . Does it not have an identifier? Others appear to have isbns, . In short, I think we need a location and an isbn.
 * done; loc and isbn visible here. Ceoil  (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Have checked all the online sources. Not able to check the book sources but, given the provenance, I'm not concerned. If Ceoil could have a look at the above comments/queries, I'd then be very pleased to sign off the Source review. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks KJP1, will let you know when complete. Ceoil  (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, think I have all these now. Ceoil  (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks for the very prompt responses. Just one quick one, and I'm really sorry if I'm being dumb, but where is Cite 37 (formerly Cite 34) in the inline text? When I click on the little "Jump up" hat to the right of the cite, it doesn't take me anywhere and I can't see it in the main body. KJP1 (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * it was in an image ALT! Now removed. Ceoil  (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought I was going mad. All done indeed, and happy to sign off the Source review. Congrats. When I think I was commenting from Spain back in October, this one's been a bit of a slog. KJP1 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * oh, it was worth the excellent feedback. Thank you very much. Ceoil  (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, KJP1, it looks like you've performed a spotcheck of sources for accurate use, which is great, but are you signing off on the reliability of the sources per my earlier comment? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - yep, I’m happy both with the reliability of the sources themselves, and the uses to which they’ve been put. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)