Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck)/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC).

Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck)

 * ''Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoriaearle

This article is interesting in part because it reveals the art historical process; the people who make the final attribution decide how many millions of pounds a painting is worth (that would be huge bunch, in this case). More importantly 15th century paintings of this quality are invaluable and moving windows into lives from the distant past; that reach back and introduce people from far away centuries. Hope ye enjoy reading the page as much as we did writing it.Ceoil (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

 * The article uses both American and British English spelling (color vs colour etc). This should be consistent. Aa77zz (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a discrepancy between the figure caption and the text for the dimensions of the Philadelphia painting. Is it 12.4 x 14.6 cm or 12.7 x 14.6 cm? Aa77zz (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the c/e. Fixed the 12.4 mesurment; combing through for US spelling. Ceoil (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for noting (and for the copyedit!). I've been through top-to-bottom to weed out what I can but don't always recognise/recognize the discrepancies. Do you know whether St. should be with or without a full stop (it takes a full stop in AmEng). That's one inconsistency I've found. Victoria (tk) 19:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No full stop/period for St in British English - and below: "gray" is less usual but ok. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay removed all except from Little Flowers of St. Francis which made it turn red. If it's a problem will fix that later. Thanks for explaining; I thought you'd mentioned this another time, as well. Victoria (tk) 13:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At the moment there are 6 uses of "color" (or derivatives) of which 2 are in quotes and should stay. There are 3 occasions where "colour" is used. In addition, if you want British spelling:
 * enameled -> enamelled
 * mollusk -> mollusc (may be optional)
 * fibers -> fibres
 * gray -> grey


 * The extract from the will is also quoted in Weale's Hubert and John Van Eyck, their life and work 1908 page 131 available here. He has "Sinte Franssen" with an extra "e" - I've no idea if this is correct. Aa77zz (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those. I checked enamaled in the source (it's a quote) and I transcribed it correctly. I had noticed the difference between Weale and Dhanen's orthography and decided to use Dhanens' version. I've double checked just now and she does write Sint-Franssen, with a hyphen. We got grey and fibres and somehow with your help managed to sort out the color / colour issue. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * enameled -> enamelled is now gone from the text. The others fixed. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikkimaria! Victoria (tk) 16:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

 * Lead could do with some streamlining; I've done a bit.
 * Ive tighted this a bit now. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "X radiograph analysis dates growth rings in the wood of the Philadelphia panel to between 1225 and 1307.[39]" - don't we mean dendrochronology, as Klein's title suggests? Or do we need x-rays to see the rings? Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * More later. Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod; leaving these to Ceoil to work through. Victoria (tk) 13:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh dear; the article has had over 100 edits since I last commented, so I can't follow the changes, but the lead has got worse. You need to begin with clear statements of where the paintings are, which is the bigger, etc. Then comparison and contrasts. Don't start by saying they are "nearly identical" when one is over twice as large as the other - my change here has been reverted. Losing all the refs from the lead is probably a mistake - things like "weak" just need a ref imo. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We've both tweaked the lead. Victoria (tk) 01:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's moved on a good bit. I need to find the time for full comments. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think you might be adding further comments any time soon, Johnbod? Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aah! If I haven't by Monday, then probably not. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Reflective water surfaces were another typical van Eyckian innovation, one he seems to have mastered early and which requires a considerable degree of artistry." - Turin-Milan Hours worth mentioning here I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It now reads "evidenced by the water scenes in the Turin-Milan Hours[19]" Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Rules were generally relaxed for lay members; the Confraternity of the Dry Tree lacked possessions but the chapel was lavishly decorated." What's the point here? It was a lay confraternity, a mixture of prayer group and dining club, like the modern Catenian Association or others; all or nearly all the members were lay, weren't they? The organization may have lacked major assets but the members certainly didn't. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point & cut. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * " Infrared reflectography found base layer of paint overlaid with hatching and fine brush strokes. " grammar. one or many? Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, fixed. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "The most important factor in the attribution of an old master is the date of completion." I know what you mean but it reads oddly Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Establishing an approximate date of completionmost is usually one of the most important factor in attribution an old master painting.[1] Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "There are three possibilities; the panels are placed within van Eyck's lifetime and are originals; they were completed by workshop members, after his death, from a left-behind underdrawing; or they were created by a highly talented follower compiling a pastiche of early Eyckian motifs." Don't know what the ref says, but various further options suggest themselves - in particular "the panels are placed within van Eyck's lifetime and were completed by workshop members" (ie not after). "left-behind" reads a bit informally; sounds like he forgot to pack it coming back from holiday. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rephrased "left-behind". The refs got shoved around a bit there and at one point Harbison was used as a source, so hoping (yes, pinging!) will take a look, because I don't have that source. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have gone with There are three possibilities; the panels are van Eyck originals; they were completed by workshop members after his death from one of his underdrawings; or they were created by a highly talented follower compiling a pastiche of Eyckian motifs'. Ceoil (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Opinion in the mid-20th century favoured a workshop member; Erwin Panofsky admitted "flagrant heresy" when he expressed doubt with the attribution to van Eyck.[38]" I think Curly has spotted the lack of clarity here. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have reworded but it needs checking. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Checked? Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I trimmed it down a bit. I think he used the word heresy as he had established a number of attributions himself. Ceoil (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "....placed the two paintings in an unattributed category. She mentions Panofsky's dispute as by a follower of van Eyck, and she notes the similarity of the landscape boat scene to passages in works known to be from workshop members, in particular the motif in a depiction of Saint Anthony now in Copenhagen." needs decoding! Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Attempted to decode. She hedges - greatly. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see Victoria cut this. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * " In the end she believes the attribution to van Eyck rests entirely on Anselme Adornes' will.[48]" which we haven't been told about yet. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mentioned in the lead. I suppose it could be cut here, but thinking maybe the entire Dhanens section could go because not sure what it adds. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Prado image needs more coverage. It has significant differences in the composition. "It seems to follow the Philadelphia panel as it was before the later additions were removed." - have we been told about these? Don't think so. I can help with basic catalogue details if needed. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I have these, somewhere. Will dig out. Ceoil (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I dont have much on the Prado version; weirdly I was thinking of this. Might need help here. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally I think I'd move Provenance higher up. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regiged so that provenance comes before description, which is now merged with iconography and condition. Ceoil (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * the Adornes are "patrician". If literally so, link to Patrician (post-Roman Europe), but I didn't know that Bruges operated a proper, legally defined, patriciate at this point (it may well have done). Or is it just saying "rich"? Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, cut. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "in the fashion of the van Eyckian ..." just "Eyckian" more usual I think (not sure). Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, seems to be and was used inconsistently (thanks for noting!). Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 02:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Fry quote "was considerably larger at the top," needs a [once] for clarity perhaps, or a longer quote?  Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. Will go into history tomorrow and pull out the longer quote. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, added [once]. The longer quote already got put back and that's what he wrote in 1926. Victoria (tk) 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd definitely make the exhibition section a sub-section of Provenance. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the tardiness, merged now, good call. Ceoil (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe more later. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time. I've done the ones I can that I have sources for. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've given some thought today today to the attribution section and wondering whether it should be rewritten chronologically by who said what when, because at the moment it's a little confused. But - the sources, too, are confusing. I'm surprised to see Borchert (in 2008) still saying it's a workshop member and that JvE worked on Turin-Milan Hours late in his career. Also, I thought about removing Dhanens completely but decided against. Basically I'm on the fence in terms of how to deal with this and would like to wait until Ceoil surfaces. If he doesn't, then I'll do what I can there, but it involves re-reading all the sources and will take some time. Sorry, this is hedging, but it's the best I can do. Also, haven't gotten to the Prado painting yet either. Victoria (tk) 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've reorganized the "Attribution" section to discuss dating first (Phila & then Turin), and then goes on to discuss attribution. The problematic "there are three possibilities" section is now at the bottom and might still need some tweaking. As for the Prado, it confuses me to be honest, so not a lot I can do there. Victoria (tk) 17:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you please comment on the status of your remarks and where you stand on the article? -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All done (by Victoria), except as noted. Really I'm pretty much ready to support, but a couple of points should be looked at by Ceoil. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my tardiness with this, and to Victoria for carrying so much heavy lifting. All adress now, apart from coverage of the Prado copy. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added on that - arguably a bit too much, as it is really just a later copy. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support All points now resolved, & the article has much improved & is now FA standard. It was nominated too early really. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

 * Feel free to undo any of the copyedits I've made.
 * In the lead it would be best to clarify that "the wounds" means "stigmata"
 * Done. Victoria (tk) 23:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead doesn't need those citations, per WP:LEADCITE
 * Debatable; but there are probably inconsistent levels of citation. Either fewer or more are needed. Personally I'm happy either way. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Had submitted to DYK (unsuccessfully) and remnant of that attempt. Now gone. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The work in Philadelphia is generally attributed: this comes out of nowhere; wouldn't "the smaller panel" be better at this point?
 * Done. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A recently reconstructed: how recently?
 * Will get back to this: the research project and restorations should be mentioned in the lead - leaving for Ceoil to do. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Added to lead. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "glass-containing bread": can any explanation be given for this?
 * Nope, but I assume 15th century sandpaper. Can remove if you think necessary but I like the concept. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if no explanation exists, that at least should be stated so readers don't go scouring the internet for nonexistent explanations. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Took it out. Victoria (tk) 22:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In the "Adoration of the Mystic Lamb of God" panel of the Ghent Altarpiece : no date for this one?
 * Mentioned as before 1432 now, I see. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The representation of Christ is of a seraphic vision: is there anything good to link to here?
 * from the rock face "intersecting the fossils to reveal cross sections of the shells in side profile".: quotes must be attributed and followed by a inline cite (even if the same cite follows later in the paragraph)
 * Done. Victoria (tk) 01:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have never done this and in others don't follow that convention either. Most style guides (MLA, etc., say to quote at the end of the cited material) but will follow consensus here. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck my comment. Quotes about to be cited. Victoria (tk) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Got some; not all. Hopefully Ceoil can get the others. Victoria (tk) 14:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * to which Anselme Adornes belonged: who?
 * We need to introduce the Adornes family's tie to these paintings in the lead. Leaving that to Ceoil. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * mentioned in lead; explained later. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In this depiction he sees "a man like a seraph having six wings, standing over him with hands outstretched and feet joined together, fixed to a cross. Two wings were raised above his head, two were spread out for flight, and two veiled the whole body": again, we need attribution. Is there some reason this needs to be quoted?
 * Many Wikipedians set the bar for what "needs to be quoted" too high, imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I quoted it because I'm a pagan and don't always understand Christian symbols, because I like it, and because I was afraid of straying too far to the source. Can be completely rewritten if required. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The only requirement is for attribution. I'm smply one of those with a high bar for "needs to be quoted", as quoting draws attention to the quote itself, which I feel is often WP:UNDUE. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Would like to keep it. It's an important concept imo. Basically the entire point of the painting. How often does a six winged seraph christ appear in front of someone? Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

outdent: I've moved discussion to article talk so we can move on. Victoria (tk) 03:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * which was further expounded: what was further expounded?
 * Trimmed and reworded. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote re seraph, vision, stigmata now attributed to Thomas of Celano (who wrote it in his hagiography of St Francis) from a source that had been bookmarked to be added. Hopefully this helps. Victoria (tk) 01:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * on the basis of the pointed iconography: meaning van Eyk avoided pointed iconography? If so, this should be made explicit.
 * I've stopped just before "Research". Ping me if I forget to return. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to read and comment; these are useful. Victoria (tk) 13:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers Curly. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado
I'm copyediting while I review, of course treat those like any other edits. I will have to review this article in several sessions. I'm not at all familiar with this area, so please don't make changes merely to shut me up, I will accept a reasonable response too... On the other hand, that makes me stop as soon as I don't understand something from context, so I hope I can add some value. --Mirokado (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2014 (UT
 * Lead:
 * odd to explain that the third painting is in the Prado when the location of the first two has not been mentioned – dealing with this may make the latter "Philadelphia and Turin" comment moot. Perhaps extend the first sentence a bit? "... two nearly identical 1428–32 paintings, in Turin and Philadelphia."
 * Did this. Ceoil (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing the landscape as "expansive". There are rock outcrops quite close to left and right with a city in the background to centre. Do sources support this adjective?
 * clarified. Ceoil (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Description / Material:
 * Philadelphia and Turin are mentioned here without any previous mention of which painting is where. This comment is, I realise, a bit unfair because the details are in the captions for the two adjacent images, but I looked at the images and did not read the captions before reading the main article – I imagine many readers will do the same.
 * Fixed Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It will I think be clearer if there are separate paragraphs for each painting and if the order follows the order of the images, thus move the last sentence to a new paragraph at the start of the section.
 * Thinking about this. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Prefer not to split. It's written in a compare/contrast block pattern (instead of point-by-point). Block pattern can have both in the same para. Victoria (tk) 18:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, struck that part of the comment. --Mirokado (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Re text order following the order of the images. The smaller (Philadelphia) version is generally considered the first and, for the most part, the text is Phila → Turin blockstyle compare/contrast. There are a few places where that needs to be fixed btw - but can't get to it at the moment. The problem is that formatting the smaller image above the larger in the lead might not work, imo. So it's a problem that needs some thinking about. It's a very good point though. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the careful response. That is a good reason for arranging and ordering the text as you have, and yes the presentation of the images will not work the other way round, so I agree with leaving this as it is at present. Striking this point. --Mirokado (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "the parchment surrounding the image": it may be clearer to say, earlier in the sentence, "The small Philadelphia panel is painted with oil on vellum mounted on parchment" (or whatever is actually the case) since otherwise "the parchment" is a surprise to the reader.
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please check [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Francis_Receiving_the_Stigmata_%28van_Eyck%29&diff=640363236&oldid=640362947 my subsequent edit], particularly the resulting placement of the ref callout after "vellum" in the middle of the sentence. --Mirokado (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * second image caption: "Oil on vellum on panel" does not mention the parchment...
 * Addressed Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * These are very astute and very welcome observations Mirokado. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * References, citations
 * Worldcat lists the authors as "Rosa Giorgi; Stefano Zuffi" for Zuffi, Stefano. Saints in Art. Los Angeles: Getty Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-89236-717-2 . They are not always correct, please can you check? --Mirokado (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of the book, and see now that Zuffi is series editor, even though on the inleaf his name is most prominant, Giorgi mentioned only half ways down the page, not as author, but have confirmed otherwise. Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no citation for the "Borchert (1991), 86" short note: should that be Borchert (2008)? --Mirokado (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Got that. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of duplication of the Rishel (1997) citation. Can the chapter citations just say "In Rishel (1997)."? --Mirokado (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's bulky and I'm not crazy about it but it's a compilation of essays, each written by a different scholar, each attributed in-text, so those authors need to be visible in the bibliography/sources. The FAC criteria for consistent bib formatting doesn't give much room for movement (i.e no opcits, no ibids, no entry that's formatted differently than the others). The only solution is to only mention Rishel as editor, ignore the authors' names, but I don't see that as viable. Welcome advice regarding this. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is basically my thinking too. Its not ideal, but preferable to merging wholesale. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: I meant retaining the short notes as at present, with individual author citations for the chapters, but referring to the whole book for editor and publisher details, with "Rishel (1977)" exactly the format used elsewhere to refer to a full citation, thus:
 * Butler, Marigene. "An Investigation of the Philadelphia 'Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata'". In Rishel (1997)
 * Borchert, Till-Holger. Van Eyck. London: Taschen, 2008. ISBN 3-8228-5687-8
 * Giorgi, Rosa. Saints in Art. Los Angeles: Getty Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-89236-717-2
 * Klein, Peter. "Dendrochronological Analyses of the Two Panels of 'Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata'". In Rishel (1997)
 * Rishel, Joseph. Jan Van Eyck: Two Paintings of Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1997. ISBN 0-8763-3115-0
 * Smeyers, Maurits. "The Philadelphia-Turin Paintings and the Turin-Milan Hours". In Rishel (1997)
 * It would be nice to do it that way and perhaps I'm taking the concept of consistency to an extreme (you clear!), but i.,e in Early Netherlandish Painting we wrote out the many chapters in Ainsworth in the sources, and it's that way in Hemingway pages, i.,e the essays from Wagner-Martin in Big Two-Hearted River. Shall we ping Nikkimaria for her opinion? She's the expert! Victoria (tk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I was thinking that it would be better to check this with "the powers that be". This review would not be the right place for an extended discussion, so having made the suggestion I will accept whatever you and the delegates decide. please comment. --Mirokado (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If done consistently either option would be acceptable, provided the full details for Rischel were included somewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikkimaria, I've redone with full details for Rishel included once, and with "In Rishel" for the separate author/chapters. Hope this works. Victoria (tk) 13:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And thank you, Victoria, for making that change. Now striking this comment. --Mirokado (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at both the Worldcat entry and the illustration of the book cover there, it looks as if the book title should be as above, colon after Eyck and without the colon in the middle of the actual painting title. --Mirokado (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Title fixed. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry, I need to ask again about the colon after Francis. It doesn't appear anywhere else in the titles of the paintings here or in the Worldcat listing for that book. The illustration of the cover shows a line break after Francis but that seems more like cover artistry, since the whole painting title without colon is italicised. The online search function strips the colon and doesn't display the match, so I could not check inside the book. A brief "it has a colon on the title page" or whatever would suffice if the colon is correct, but in that case the single quotes around the whole title (reflecting the italicisation on the cover) might not be. --Mirokado (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a copy / paste error, missed earlier. Thanks for the catch. Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Katherine Luber's contributions to the Philadelphia Museum of Art Bulletin were published in a volume which is available via the Internet Archive: Recognizing van Eyck. Can we add urls to the citations, for example by linking the chapter titles to the start of each chapter? --Mirokado (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've linked the "Forward" that I took from there, but until this went to FAC didn't know it was available at archives.org and worked from separate downloaded hardcopy files for the others. Will have to go through and check page numbers. If they all match, then we should probably sort out the Luber a, b, c. That will take a little time, and I'm not totally convinced it needs to be done. If Ceoil read it from there, then might be easier for him to do. Victoria (tk) 16:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well done for thinking about page numbers. They are out-by-two in the archive navigation, because the archive counts the front cover sheet as pages 1 and 2, and out-by-one with respect to the number in the url since that starts at 0! We should probably retain the printed page numbers in the references. It would be good if we can have the link to the archive somehow as well, though. --Mirokado (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The link to the "Forward" might suffice, because it gets us to the document? Thanks for checking the page numbers! I had planned to change all those, was worried about page numbers and in the end decided to stick with the sources in hand. Thanks too for fixing my mistakes! Still not fully recovered, hence a bit of a slow down here. Victoria (tk) 23:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck above. Now linked to the book's title, which I think is better. Victoria (tk) 01:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes the book title is better. Striking now. --Mirokado (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Attribution
 * they were created by a highly talented follower based on pastiches: is "pastiche" the correct word here? Looking at pastiche the phrase would seem to mean "they were created by a highly talented follower based on works themselves imitating the style or character of van Eyck". Can we clarify this somehow? If we do use "pastiche" we should wikilink it.
 * Yes but I dont want to go down the road of "tropes" Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That article is quite interesting and strong. I like the differention between parody and tribute; I has hesidant for that reason. Linked and rephrased as from "a highly talented follower compiling a pastiche of early Eyckian motifs". Ceoil (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is clear now. --Mirokado (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * when he expressed doubt with the attribution of Jan: probably "attribution to ..." is better. Is the use of "Jan" here because Panofsky preferred another van Eyck (Hubert?) as the author? If so, it may be better to say who he meant explicitly.
 * For a period ...: "For some time ..."?
 * x-ray analysis ... design ... Infrared reflectography ... extensive underdrawing: is a distinction intended between "design" and "underdrawing"? If so, what? What is the difference between the two techniques mentioned in terms of what they reveal?
 * I would think they are the same thing, maybe Johnbod can shed light. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that Johnbod might be able to shed light (no pun intended!); but, yes, the two techniques seem to be different. See Butler, page 30 (mentions X-radiograph) and page 40 (mentions reflectography). I remember reading about reflectography but need to search the sources to find the definition. It was interesting. Anyway, will come back to this. Victoria (tk) 02:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant between "design" and "underdrawing"....Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree those are much the same; the scientific techniques are different, revealing different things, but I'm a bit vague. Infrared reflectography shows carbon black, much used in undredrawing, while x-rays pick up metal, in particular, white lead in paint, silver or lead point in drawing. Think that's right. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding; on page 29, here Butler lists the investigative techniques and reads to me as though each one is different. Victoria (tk) 02:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the IR revealed further details of what the X-rays had first indicated, I think the second sentence can be clarified by adding "further": "Infrared reflectography further revealed the extensive underdrawing beneath the original paint;".
 * Yes, I've added this. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to explain what, and how, extra detail was revealed by the use of IR, if that can be done fairly concisely. --Mirokado (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The operative word is concision. The sources will need a revisit and then a decision in regards to the best placement. The technical explanations are lengthy and in the end we decided to summarize, but there's plenty of room for expansion, especially giving the importance of the research project. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have made a small clarification in this edit. Victoria (tk) 13:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've added this. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to explain what, and how, extra detail was revealed by the use of IR, if that can be done fairly concisely. --Mirokado (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The operative word is concision. The sources will need a revisit and then a decision in regards to the best placement. The technical explanations are lengthy and in the end we decided to summarize, but there's plenty of room for expansion, especially giving the importance of the research project. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have made a small clarification in this edit. Victoria (tk) 13:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This panel seems to follow the Philadelphia version before the later additions were removed.: Which additions are being referred to here? There is the mention of "alterations to the composition after laying down the underdrawings and completing painting" a bit earlier in this section. The additions mentioned in the Condition section seem at least partly to have been much later.
 * Description of what the later additions were got removed when I gutted the page yesterday. Turns out I have acute bronchitis, but should be better in a few days and would like to put back some of those deletions (that I wasn't feeling well is an understatement!). Also apologies to all for the meltdown. Victoria (tk) 18:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry, I'll be watching this for any updates when you are ready. Happy New Year. --Mirokado (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Section re removals during restoration restored. Probably needs some tweaking though. Victoria (tk) 01:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Found a file that hadn't made it in which explains removals better (with numbers). Now added. Victoria (tk) 01:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The updates to the Condition section clarify the additions nicely. I now understand the sentence here, but perhaps we could clarify it, something like: "This panel seems to follow the Philadelphia version as it was before the later additions were removed." --Mirokado (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, good catch. Fixed. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Condition
 * ... at an unknown point.: "... at some time."? (We know where it was scratched...)
 * 1998 exhibition
 * ... and a few manuscript leafs.: "leaves" unless manuscripts are a specialised exception
 * ... and a few manuscript leafs. Of those, only two are ...: perhaps better as one sentence: "... and a few manuscript leaves, of which only two are ..."
 * Got these Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * since there were only five paintings and four are mentioned, can we mention the fifth too?
 * Excellent catch (b/c the NYT is wrong!). Now fixed and expanded. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hum. We now don't mention either of the Francis paintings in this section. What about the Philadelphia painting? How could that not have been part of the exhibition? Probably a little more detail needed here, particularly if the NYT article used as a reference is incorrect somehow. --Mirokado (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NYT failed to mention the St Christophers. The Saint Francises got lost in my "fix" and now retrieved. Sorry about that! Victoria (tk) 08:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I've now gone through all the article content. There is clearly still quite a lot of copyediting happening, so I will read through the article again once it has settled down a bit. --Mirokado (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of these, but unsure about Rishel. Thinking. Your right about there being a lot of copyediting; the feedback has been great. Maybe I'll ping you when ready for you to revisit? Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. --Mirokado (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will probably be online a bit less over the next few days, but I'll respond when I can. --Mirokado (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I might not be around much myself until next week. I do want to take the opportunity to thank you for a most thorough, thoughtful, and pleasant review. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! --Mirokado (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've now read through the article again and have a few final comments: It is a pleasure to support this article now. --Mirokado (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Driveby sorry if this has been asked; why isn't this article at just Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata?—indopug (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lead:
 * ... most scholars attributed it either to...: should "it" be "them" since the preceding text is talking about both paintings?
 * The Italian panel revealed underdrawings...: It is the investigation which revealed the underdrawings, not the panel itself. I suggest rephrasing, perhaps add "and on" so that the subject of "revealed" is "Technical analysis" as for "established": "...; and on the Italian panel revealed ..."
 * Figures:
 * The details of his head and face are minutely detailed.: repetition of "detail".
 * Better, but features are the subject of two successive sentences. I also didn't quite like "given...gives" on repeated reading. Perhaps consider: "Francis has individualized features,[9] to the point that the attention to his face gives it the quality of a portrait such as van Eyck's c. 1431 Portrait of Cardinal Niccolò Albergati,[2] The head and face are minutely detailed."
 * Yes, that's better. Thanks! Victoria (tk) 17:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Order founder: "Order's founder" would be better?
 * Iconography:
 * The theatrical pose, rays of light entering his body causing wounds on his side are eliminated, which are deemed "essential features of the iconography".:
 * I would mention three features of the Giotto and many other representations (I've had a look through Commons), see suggested change (you probably intended this and a couple of words have got lost somewhere)
 * rephrase, so that the subordinate clause "which are deemed..." comes closer to its referents
 * thus: The theatrical pose, rays of light entering his body causing wounds and the wound on his side, which are deemed "essential features of the iconography", are eliminated.
 * is "essential features of the iconography" a quote which needs to be attributed in the text?
 * Much better than my suggestion, but we are still not mentioning the wound in the side. Is there a reason for not doing so?
 * No reason except that when I put in the quote I forgot! Done now and thanks for catching. Victoria (tk) 17:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ...his feet positioned near a small stream gushing from the rocks, which signify redemption or salvation. It is the stream which signifies redemption or salvation, so "signifies" would be correct and the sentence would be better rephrased: "...his feet positioned near a small stream, which signifies redemption or salvation, gushing from the rocks."
 * Attribution:
 * ..-but x-ray analysis discovered...: "revealed" would probably be better here.
 * "...kneeling figure of The Agony in the Garden leaf...": If we substitute a different title here, we see that a "the" is needed whose referent is "leaf": "...kneeling figure of Apricots leaf...". I suggest rephrasing to avoid the juxtaposition of "the The", perhaps – Borchert notes the similarity of Francis's pose to the kneeling figure of the "Turin-Milan Hours" leaf The Agony in the Garden, ...
 * Thank you Mirokado - these are all excellent catches and I think now dealt with. Thanks too for the thorough review and the support. Victoria (tk) 17:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sorry for the late response, but I, idiot, broke my ankle last Monday morning and have not been able to log in for a while. (The ankle will be OK again, will just take a while.) A couple of further comments embedded above. --Mirokado (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Take care and thanks for taking the time to look over this. Victoria (tk) 17:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for everything Mirokado, safe recovery :) Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome and thanks for the good wishes. I'm leaving hospital on Monday, then it is a matter of rest and physio. This finishes my review. --Mirokado (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reviewing from hospital goes beyond the call of duty! Thanks so much to sticking with this and take care of yourself. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a bad suggestion, if agrees and doesn't mind another move. Victoria (tk) 01:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aargh, no! This is a very common subject for paintings, and a valid title (very possibly more valid than the one WP now uses) for Stigmata of St. Francis (Giotto), St. Francis in Ecstasy (Bellini, Frick), Saint Francis of Assisi in Ecstasy (Caravaggio), and potentially dozens of other very notable paintings. What we really need is a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, as this is what the Louvre English website calls it, I've moved the Giotto to Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (Giotto), a much better title. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See a google image search for plenty more. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I did think of the Giotto and the other Italian version but … well, anyway at least Indopug got an answer! Victoria (tk) 04:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
Support – This is a fine article, but the prose still needs a bit of tidying. First, are we in American English or British English? We have, for instance, "colour" but "traveled", and for possessives for names ending in "s" a mixture of US ess-apostrophe and English ess-apostrophe-ess. Consistency, please. Other small points on the prose: Nothing to frighten the horses there, and the article seems to me of the usual high quality of scholarship and enthusiasm from this source. I'm happy to add my support. –   Tim riley  talk    18:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Most scholar's" – either there is a noun missing or you have a greengrocer's apostrophe here.
 * "unconcerned by the the apparition" – duplicate word
 * "throneroom ... city-scape" – the opposite of how I would hyphenate them (but what do I know?)
 * "kneeling figure of the The Agony" – more double articles
 * Thank you Tim for the comments and support, and apologies for the tardy response! I got all the ones you mentioned, and a few others too. Thanks for finding them. Victoria (tk) 16:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

More Turkey

 * The article looks in fine shape. A few things:
 * northern art: should this be northern European art or somesuch?
 * that could only have come from van Eyck: I assume this is what scholars believe rather than an incontrovertible fact?
 * Today the consensus is that the panels were painted by the same hand.: if the consensus is that they could only be by van Eyck, then stating this here is redundant.
 * conversions to inches are given in the body, bu tnot in the lead. Any reason?
 * similar to those seen in contemporary illuminated manuscripts: what does "those" refer to?
 * and anti-naturalistic positioning: the "anti-" seems to me like it was a revolt against naturalism. Would "unnaturalistic" be inappropriate?
 * Till-Holger Borchert observes that Francis' feet are positioned slightly too high above the rest of his body, making them "so bizarrely placed as to look like a foreign body".: this appears in a separate paragraph from the one about His knees and feet seem disconnected. I'd rearrange so these things were together.
 * Question: when speaking aloud, do you say Francis'  or Francis's ?
 * such as rays or beams of light: is there a differentce between a "ray" and a "beam" of light?
 * The representation of Christ is of a seraphic vision: I asked this above as well: is there anything good to link to here?
 * In the the aligment is set to "left/right/center".
 * significant dissenting voices in the recent past: how recent is "the recent past"?
 * Opinion in the mid-20th century favoured a workshop member; Erwin Panofsky admitted "flagrant heresy" when he expressed doubt with the attribution to Jan.: this is confused---why would it be heresy to doubt attribution to van Eyck at a time when opinion favoured a workshop member?
 * Examination of the sapwood: it might be a good idea to mention the sapwood when discussing the other materials
 * the placement of his feet and knees "made more rational": requires attribution
 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Northern art is now clarified
 * "only have come from van Eyck" is a finding from technical analysis - the underdrawings are almost identical to other work known to be van Eyck's - clarified
 * Because there are two paintings, only the attributions for both rely on the technical analysis - the tree-ring analysis ties the Phila. painting (at least) to his workshop, the underdrawings tie the Turin painting to his work. - clarified
 * I added and then removed conversions from the lead because they look like this and on my screen a couple of line are filled with numbers. I think it's ok to have the converts in the body and the pic captions.
 * "similar too…" - good catch and thanks. A piece got lost, now found.
 * Yes, probably best to have the possessive s for Francis. Done now.
 * Beams are gone.
 * "rational" attributed.
 * multiple image fixed
 * Seraph linked; haven't a clue how to link "seraphic vision". Maybe Ceoil or Johnbod know.
 * Thanks for these - done a few. The others will take a bit more time. Thanks for the copyedits, btw! Victoria (tk) 01:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to link seraphic vision so spefically; would be like trying to find an article for Holy Joe. Establishing that the archetype had three pairs of wings is enough, I think. Ceoil (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If "serephic vision" just means "seeing a seraph", then, yeah, linking to Seraph is sufficient. I had no idea what a seraph was, nor whether a "seraphic vision" had some sort of special meaning. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should you have had. It was unclear. But...it dont. Ceoil (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just toned it down a bit. Ceoil (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing something on my own list, I do believe you've addressed all my concerns. I'm adding my support to this very fine article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank Mr Turkey, for the support and for the thorough review! Victoria (tk) 17:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Support very well done. I don't have many comments:


 * "This treatment of Francis" What treatment of Francis? The first time that incident had been painted in Northern Europe?
 * "A later, third version ..." this sentence seems a bit out of place and might do better concluding the second paragraph
 * "The fossils are either a type of mollusk similar to present-day bivalvia or brachiopods" This is a bit unclear. Is the choice mollusk or brachiopod, or is the mollusk a given and the choice between the two b's?
 * "Her team undertook a programme of restoration, investigating the provenance of the paintings and the relationship between them" This sentence gives me pause. The investigation is not an example of the restoration, so is this a list?  It seems there's a missing or misplaced "and".
 * "Borchert notes the similarity of Francis's pose to the kneeling figure in the "Turin-Milan Hours" miniature of The Agony in the Garden, and concludes that both were completed after the master had died." Can a hint of the reasoning be included?
 * "it was known in Italy," the painting or Adornes's bringing it?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Wehwalt, for taking the time to read and for the support! I got all of these except the first two. I can't think of a word to replace "treatment" and honestly don't know enough about art to say if that's the right word to use or not (I think it might be). Re "later, third version" - it is at the end of the second para. Do you mean the first para? Victoria (tk) 01:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these Wehwalt. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Coord note
Anyone signed off on sources here (formatting and reliability)? If not, Ceoil/Victoria, pls post a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They were discussed up further. Pinging, otherwise will post request this evening. Don't have time atm - lunch break is over! Tks. Victoria (tk) 17:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a few things to add to the discussion above...
 * Sources list needs some alphabetization fixes. One in particular: you've got "von Baldass" alphabetized under B, but "van Asperen de Boer" under V - should be consistent
 * 8 November not 08 November - don't need the initial zero
 * A few minor inconsistencies in footnote formatting - FN7 should include year, 10 has an extra comma, 6 is missing a space, etc
 * Pages for FN 58?
 * No citations to Smeyers, van Asperen. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nikkimaria, for taking the time (and for the good eyes!). I think I've got them all.

-- Laser brain  (talk)  21:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.