Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2016.

Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin

 * Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoria, Outriggr

Widely influential 1430s painting by Rogier van der Weyden, which is heavily indebted to, but maybe surpasses (as was the aim), Jan van Eyck's Madonna of Chancellor Rolin. Had the pleasure of seeing this large and major work at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston in 2014, and it made a significant impact, especially the figures in the midground. Victoria is on an extended break, but has given the go-ahead for this nom in her absence. Ceoil (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I enjoy these articles, when I get a chance to read them. I can't comment on the substance, but I can make suggestions for improving the prose. Thus far I've covered the lead and first two main sections: I hope these comments are helpful - will return when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "fifteenth-century" needs hyphen when in adjectival form
 * "significant changes" → "significant differences"
 * US spelling "center"?
 * "self-portrait" requires a hyphen
 * The words "so as" could be replaced by a simple comma
 * "to between": you could drop the "to"
 * Commission
 * I suggest a slight tweak in the first sentence, to: "Luke the Evangelist was thought to have been a portraitist, and according to legend widely disseminated in western Europe by the 10th century, painted the first portrait of the Virgin and Child". The shifting of the word "and" in this way makes much better sense.
 * "numerous miracles were attributed" – no need for quotes, it's a plain statement
 * For clarity I would add "of this work" after "The original..."
 * Comma required after "St Luke's skill"
 * "where he is buried" – I would name "he" to avoid possible ambiguity
 * Had you considered swapping the placings of the two paragraphs? The shorter one leads on more naturally from the section title.
 * After van Eyck
 * (second para) needs to begin "In the Van der Weyden the positioning..." and I would say of the "main figures", since you've just been talking about the subsidiary bridge figures. Also, "compared to" could be simply "from"
 * Very small point: you need to consistent about describing centuries, either numerically (e.g. "15th-century") or in prose form ("fifteenth-century"). At present both forms are used.
 * Third paragraph needs attention. The grammar is amiss: "Compared to the van Eyck, the approach is warmer and according to Smith, van der Weyden displays his ability, and that..." etc. I am puzzled by the quotation that follows: ""the viewer is invited to compare the drawing, which will be the model for the ultimate picture, with the "flesh and blood" head of the Virgin". As a viewer, I am quite uncertain of what I am being invited to do.
 * Have cut this last paragraph. Ceoil (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yes, very helpful. All addressed now, I think. Ceoil (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine. As Johnbod is engaged in a knowledgeable content review, I will wait for him to finish before resuming my nitpicks. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better. The article is (slowly) shifting emphasis post Johnbod cmts. Ceoil (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As Johnbod hasn't been active here for a while, I'll complete my prose review meantime. Will get to it Friday or Saturday.Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is a further batch of comments, again mainly prose and presentation:
 * Description - prelude
 * You mention several features that I was unable to locate, in particular the ink bottle, the speech scroll, the ox and the table. Could you add a phrase indicating where these are to be found in the painting? Probably it's made clear later on, but a hint at this point might be helpful.
 * Mentioned that they are in St Luke's study to his right, (which is dark and difficult to see, unless standing in front of the painting). Victoria (tk) 16:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think things are sufficiently clear as the prose stands. The sentence "Compared to contemporary paintings of this type, the work is unusually free of inscriptions; they appear only in Luke's study to his right, on the book, an ink bottle and a scroll emanating from the ox's mouth" is likely to puzzle readers with no knowledge of the painting. I suggest something like: ""Compared to contemporary paintings of this type, the work is unusually free of inscriptions; they appear only on items in Luke's study, dimly perceived on his right: on a book, on an ink bottle, and on a scroll emanating from the mouth of an ox",   perhaps also mentioning here why such an unusual item as an ox would be found in the study (later you say the ox is one of Luke's "attributes", but that's not much help to our dear "general reader". Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brian. I took your suggested wording. I've only recently discovered we have articles about saints' attributes, i.e, Saint Catherine's wheel. The ox is now linked. Will that work, or should we mention earlier that it's his attribute? Victoria (tk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Foreground
 * Mary appears to sit "under" rather than "before" the canopy
 * You first describe Mary's dress as "purplish red-embroidered", but a line later you say it is "composed of a variety of blues overlaid with lead white and deep blue lapis lazuli highlights". I certainly see it as predominantly blue and can't reconcile the "purplish red-embroidered" description. Is it that the colours have become distorted in this image of the painting?
 * The phrasing "more so when you consider" is non-neutral and personal, and should either be reworded or tied to a specific source, e.g. "more so, X says, when you consider..."
 * "Luke is beardless and relatively youthful", followed quickly by "he is middle-aged with light stubble and greying hair" – hardly attributes of even "relative" youth. Even these days, you wouldn't descibe mid-forties as youthful; I'd be inclined to omit the words "relatively youthful"
 * "his usual attributes" suggests something generally known. I think I would say his "specific" attributes. I still find my eyes searching for a sleeping ox.
 * See my earlier comments on the ox. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Mary's head was tilted to the right, but ends up upright" – in the main image and in the detail, her head is distinctly tilted to the right.
 * The last two sentences of the section don't seem to relate to the foreground. Should they be elsewhere?
 * That entire paragraph is about the underdrawing and bits and pieces that either didn't make it to the final cut, as it were, or were changed. I've moved the para to be a standalone piece, but to do so had to lose the subheadings and fiddle with image formatting. I'm not sure which is best: two slightly unconnected sentences, or a paragraph completely devoted to underdrawings and but no subheadings? Victoria (tk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Midground and landscape
 * "three arches": I thought that arches were by definition curved; these three openings are flat-topped (the van Eyck panel shows obvious arches)
 * Changed to columns. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The figures closely resemble two similar figures in the van Eyck panel" - its more the positionings that are similar; the actual figures are not similar in appearance.
 * fixed. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Do we need the subsequent anaysis of the figures in the van Eyck panel? The text between "A red headdress..." and "died around 1426" seems unnecessary in this article.
 * Yes, I think to it's important to mention that Hubert van Eyck, who died in 1426 after starting the Ghent Altarpiece, is probably memorialized in van Eyck's painting, and van der Weyden used similar figures/positionings. I've restored the 1426 date, but it's ok if Ceoil disagrees and removes, or if you think it's too much detail. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The facts lends the panel a lot of its impact. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "the man in the turban" – why not just "the man"?
 * "in comparison opposed to" → "unlike"
 * Self-portrait
 * "Van der Weyden appears to be in his mid-30s, intelligent and handsome, but weather-worn" - if this is describing the St Luke image, it doesn't really tally with the earlier description of Luke as "early 40s...middle-aged with light stubble and greying hair".
 * "as the embodiment Luke" → "as the embodiment of Luke"
 * "describes the panel in terms of" → "describes the panel as"?

I hope these are helpful. I will get to finish tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk)
 * Have met most of those very helpful suggestions, with a few o/s. Thank you for looking so closely. Ceoil (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

These are my final comments. I'm leaning to support, but in view of my subject ignorance I'd like to see Johnbod's finished review first.
 * Iconography
 * "no one" is not hyphenated
 * How does "the implication being that she cares for all and no-one will go hungry" tie in with Lukes dual role? As healer, yes; as artist...?
 * "shroud of the church"? I'm not familiar with this concept; is it something like the veil of the tabernacle that separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Holy Place?
 * "The arms of her throne..." Perhaps say something here about Mary's positioning in relatation to the throne. She appears to be seated on its step. (I see that you do this in the final sentences of the section; perhaps this information should be moved up?)
 * The locations of the "figures illusionistically painted as if they were carved into the wood" are by no means clear to the viewer.
 * Reworded so it is, hopefully, more clear to the lay reader. Victoria (tk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "In the rear, the loggia faces towards an enclosed garden, another emblem of the Virgin's chastity" Uncited statement
 * Removed until its source is found. Victoria (tk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The MFA describes it as such here. Victoria I think we are ok with the claim, though I would like to add more context. Ceoil (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. I overlooked the online source. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The panel is among the first known..." → "The Van der Weyden panel is among the first known..."
 * "A representation of Adam and Eve is carved on the arm-rest of the Virgin's seat". Earlier we read that these figures were "painted as if they were carved".
 * Redundant here and removed. Victoria (tk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Attribution and dating
 * "the Boston panel is an original" – Shouldn't this be the original?
 * "earliest pieces of timber" – "oldest"?
 * The Hermitage version doesn't get a mention when you are comparing the ages of the four panels.
 * No, the source doesn't mention anything about its date. Victoria (tk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Provenance and conservation
 * Tense conflict: "...describe the panel in detail, attributed it to Lucas van Leyden, and suggest..."
 * "after their purchase" → "after his purchase" (higginson was the purchaser)
 * Second para. I'd delete the words "both" and "remaining" from the first line.
 * Influence
 * "If it was in the Guild of Saint Luke's chapel in Brussels..." Shouldn't this possibility be mentioned in the provenance discussion?
 * It's now in the "Commission" section. We usually use this section only for the known provenance. The section does include Durer's diary entry, but he neglected to mention where he saw the painting, so scholars don't know much about its whereabout until the point where documentation exists. Victoria (tk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The very long sentence beginning "Also influential was..." needs attention. It's too long, too much information for a single sentence, and it goes wrong in the middle: "whose image appears in the same panel hers"
 * I think you should clarify that the "Master of the Legend of St. Ursula" is a painter – it's not obvious to non-art historians. Something like "The unidentified painter known as..."
 * "Van der Goes's is the earliest extant autographed copy..." - "copy" is surely not the right term. There is clear influence, but it's a different depiction entirely.
 * There may be a bit too much text on the Van der Goes comparison

Overall, good work and highly informative. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: These are mostly done. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I got some of these that were outstanding, and have commented on a few above. Thanks for your review. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: I've just been through again - left the odd comment for further consideration, and done a couple of minor copyedits. I'm not sure whether Johnbod is through yet, but I feel sufficiently confident to register my support, assuming that if there were any significant blunders in the text, the experts would have identified them before now. Well done, the team. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support Brian, and for your time in providing an excellent review. The article is much improved. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this careful and thoughtful review has helped immensely. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments (Johnbod)
 * I've removed that he was painting an "apparition" in the lead. He was believed to have painted a portrait from the life, as is said later. Obviously, that such a portrait should contain the Christ Child as well is illogical, but I don't think would have bothered people in the Middle Ages much.
 * Yes, the point seems to be that he is witnessing her in person, rather an "apparition", which you would seen in a donor portrait. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "During the Early Renaissance, images of the Virgin and Child were more commonly found in Northern than Italian art..." unrefed & dubious, I'd say. They are extremely common in both.
 * Now 'images of Luke painting the Virgin" Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "faithful reproductions of images of this type..." - but are they faithful? Not by Byzantine standards, for sure. See Cambrai Madonna etc.
 * Removed "faithful". Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Iconography section now mentioning Byzantine Icons and clarifying re the specific Madonna type. Ceoil (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * We're using US English, no? Some changes made.
 * The lead seems to be British so I've been through and made some changes. Hopefully I've fixed throughout. Victoria (tk) 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Van der Weyden switches the color of their costumes; Luke is dressed in red or scarlet, Mary in warm blues. " ie, as usual. Red-clothed Madonnas were something of a personal eccentricity of van Eyck, no?
 * Yes and looking through the sources on the van Eyck to maybe expand slightly on this. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems the choice was related to the price of different pigments; ultramarine was favoured by the Italians as it was very expensive there, so worthy of a major saint. For the Northerners carmine was the most rare and costly pigment. Not sure yet on the market forces at work here (accessibility and import costs), or how to weave this in, but it's certainly interesting and I think once fleshed out might be one for the ENA article. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've qualified in a simplistic fashion so as to avoid a treatise about JvE's penchant for dressing the Virgin in red. We could do that if necessary but it will require some reading (probably Pacht) and take a bit of time. This fix might work - can be undone if not. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The earliest growth ring has been dated to around 1410, which gives credence to the estimated execution completion date of c 1435". Seems odd. You date a series of rings by their relative sizes. If the earliest is 1410 only outer sections must be represented, which should perhaps be said. What is the latest? You'd think that more relevant. Or is earliest just a typo?
 * Have reworded this but want to revisit the source and expand. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a typo. The source says "earliest" but after reading it about five times I think he means "most recent". Anyway, Ceoil fixed. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The scene is set within an architectural space that may be a castle porch. The room has a barrel vault ceiling, inlaid tiled flooring, and stained glass windows. The outer wall, or loggia, sits on a bridge over a river or harbour bay." Hmm. The loggia is the room itself, open to the elements on one side. Then there is a short drop to a patch of rather weedy lawn, apparently surrounded by a raised walkway, seen on the far side. By the Virgin's arm you can see this turning a corner, so I don't see how the loggia opens onto a bridge, even though the river seems to lead from directly underneath. If on a harbour it would be an inlet rather than a "bay".  Of course the room repeats the van Eyck, and seems very much a private space, with a small study opening off.  Are the tiles "inlaid"?  They look plain single-colour ones laid in patterns.  "Crenellated" (redirects to Battlement) is a more precise term for what the far wall is, and avoids have to guess its exact function more closely.
 * Made first pass at clarifying. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Made a second pass. This is hard. Powell says a castle balcony, Nash (I don't have that source) says loggia - so I've tried to combine the two. To digress slightly: I've seen the painting and never had a sense that the space was at a height on a castle, as the sources describe, but rather that it's an open space with a bit grass/weeds outside, then a bridge overlooking a river. But that's just one viewer's opinion, so I've tried to balance a little. Not finding much about the the patch of grass in the sources, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is after all a fictive space and, like many of van Eyck's, throws up more puzzles the more you think about it. A comprehensive analysis as though it was a real place is probably inappropriate, so I suppose I'm pushing for more vagueness, or giving the dots but not trying to join them up. Great to see you back! Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Very good point re fictive space - I've tweaked it a bit today, trying vague-ify (so to speak), but would like to take some time coming back up to speed with the sources and might take another pass there. Thanks re being back. A bit slow at the moment. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No worry or hurry. I must say I think calling the room, or its edge, a balcony just seems wrong as a matter of architectural terminology. But whatever. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree re balcony and have now fixed (hopefully) with a little more tweaking. I'd forgotten I bought a very beat up copy of Campbell, but knew I read about the space at some point, months ago. Just had to get my hands on the right source. Victoria (tk) 15:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * More later. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * These points are most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks


 * Continuing (sorry for the delay) - "Mary is presented as the Theotokos, that is as the "God-bearer", or "the one who gives birth to God", a concept largely borrowed from Eastern Orthodox thought, largely received in northern European art through the veneration of Byzantine Icons." - I'd cut "Theotokos" and the middle bit - the Catholic theology is exactly the same, and goes back well before the schism. It is the iconography or forms of the images that are originally largely taken from Byzantine icons, though there was well over a century of Western development of them by van der Weyden's day, at least in Italy, not to mention the sculptures the Greeks didn't have. I'm not sure the whole sentence adds much. I don't think the "Maria Lactans" was in fact popular with the Byzantines.
 * "The panel is among the first known depictions of St Luke in Renaissance art" - better remind people he was not an Apostle, though it still seems odd. Weren't there sets of the Four Evangelists? Are we sure we don't mean "St Luke painting"? or "Northern Renaissance"?
 * "Art historians gradually revised their dating from 1450 to the currently accepted 1435–40" (agrees with lead & infobox) and "The panel is usually thought to have been completed around 1435". Better synchronise. Then "Held argues for a date between 1440 and 1443", but that was in 1955, which should be added.
 * Took a stab at this. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The MFA undertook a third restoration in 1943, when some yellowing of the glaze was repaired, and there may have been some concern over the reversibility of some of the conversation decisions taken by Ruhemann, however this restoration was not well documentated and there are doubts as to its motive and validility." All a bit cryptic; which "restoration was not well documentated"?
 * More touches edited. I haven't looked at the earlier sections again yet. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, have these; mostly by trimming down the claims. Ceoil (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think we have all of these. I've tried going through the edit history to follow events since the FAC started, but it might be easier if you can point out what's missing. If you're around today, I have a bit of time to give to it - otherwise probably won't get back until later in the week or even next Sunday. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 15:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Last run through:
 * "Van der Weyden closely follows van Eyck's c. 1435 Madonna of Chancellor Rolin, though there are significant differences. The landscape is less detailed and contains fewer human figures. While van Eyck's landscape is left open, van der Weyden's is enclosed,[9] and is set at a considerably higher distance and altitude." A bit odd. Both are really pretty similar, leading to a horizon of distant mountains. But vdW's mid-distance is closed in by walls, certainly. It is JvE who shows the higher viewpoint, surely, and vdW who shows more figures? The phrasing suggests the opposite.
 * Campbell's point seems to be that JvE's is airier at the top, which I can see, whereas RvdW's is narrower. I've trimmed out the "higher distance and altitude" because I don't have that Borchert essay and can't get access to it on the web. Victoria (tk) 15:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Luke hovers before her; he is either rising from a kneeling position or about to genuflect." Is this covered by the next ref? He does rather give this impression, but since his silverpoint is poised and he is studying his subject closely, I suspect that less-than-perfect drawing has more to do with this impression, and he is meant to be at rest. "Luke hovers before her" is I think a good deal too strong; surely gravity is not supposed to have been suspended? I'd at least soften to "gives the impression of" or something.
 * It is an odd position, but I've added "appear" and tweaked. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "His thoughts on the value and role of the artist or craftsman within a wider social sphere must have been largely self-initiated," - seems dubious to me. He lived in one of the largest concentrations of artists in the world, but died before such "thoughts" began to be recorded in print, or even ms.. For all we know there was lively and sophisticated debate in the guild etc, which indeed the surviving paintings suggest, as does the next para in the article. I find myself often doubting Ms Apostolos-Cappadona's points.
 * They are difficult to parse. I've rewritten but welcome your input there. I get a little lost when trying to write about the female mystics, and suspect what happened there was to try to avoid. I think those points are important, but needed to lean on direct quotes a little more than I'd like. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "By placing her underneath a canopy the artist probably implies the shroud of the church, the physical separation of the celebrant from the congregation, and the manner in which a church altar was often bordered by a screen." (ref to Apostolos-Cappadona again). Yes, perhaps, but this was also extremely common, if not standard, in depictions where she is seated and more simply relates to her role as Queen of Heaven etc etc. The Duke of Burgundy, when formally seated, normally has a cloth of honour, so naturally the Queen of Heaven too.
 * Rewritten. She's comparing the enclosed space to a church. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The animal may represent one of the apocalyptic beasts from the Book of Revelation" - on the ox. We've already made the obvious point that it is Luke's attribute (a "good" ox). It seems odd now to throw in the surely rather wacky thought that it might be one of the (rather bad) Revelations beasts.
 * Ox is gone from here. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The idea of St Luke painting the Virgin originates from a 3rd-century Marian icon." Really? No such object survives, sadly. Isn't this initially a purely literary tradition, with sharply "back-dated" relics coming later.
 * Took it away. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Though Mary is placed by a throne and under a damask canopy, indicating her role as Queen of Heaven, she does not sit on the bench but rather on its step, an indication of her humility.[24][52]" - it was brocade earlier, can it be both that and damask? This bit should be integrated with earlier passages I think.
 * Yep, agreed. Done. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems you might in fact be able to brocade damask, as a 2nd process. But I'm not sure - weaving defeats me entirely. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "In the early 1930s, based on x-radiographs, art historians Alan Burroughs attributed .." one or many?
 * Boston. Clarified. Victoria (tk) 17:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant "historians", but I decided it was just him. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, good decision :) Victoria (tk) 15:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's it. I've made some changes directly - please let me know if you disagree. All earlier points now settled. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, these all look very good. Thanks a bunch. Victoria (tk) 18:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I got them all. Thanks! I'll try to take another run through this evening to be sure I haven't made too many mistakes. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support All points dealt with. Good job both! Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and for your time in reviewing. Very good review - I enjoyed it. Victoria (tk) 15:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also enjoyed the review and researching the points raised. We are most fortunate to have a subject matter expert weigh in like this. Ceoil (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * PS; sorry, one comment I think was lost to edit conflicts "The immediate midground contains a garden with plants set in vertically aligned tiers.[9] Art historian Jeffrey Chipps Smith notes how the transition between the grounds establishes a "complex spatial space in which [van der Weyden] achieved an almost seamless movement from the elaborate architecture of the main room to the garden and parapet of the middle ground to the urban and rural landscape behind".[23]". I'm dubious about the first sentence, especially looking at the slightly varying treatments in the other versions. I've said already it looks like a weedy lawn to me - this is even more so in the St Petersberg version, where the background "plants" are clearly clumps of longish grass. The larger weeds seem randomly distributed, but I agree the Boston grass seems in the centre to be clumped in rows running to or from the viewer. "Tiers" must be wrong, on a flat surface, implying mini-terraces on a slope - rows is what plants are put in on the flat. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It didn't get lost, I simply forgot. Campbell mentions "vertical tiers", but I have to agree with you. I don't really see them. I've tweaked a bit there and removed that phrase. Victoria (tk) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that sorts it. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review Provisional support pending Johnbod's more knowledgeable comments. I read this through on a smartphone and maybe found one segment of text I'd change...aaand now I can't find it nor remember it. I can't see any prose clangers and it seems pretty comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Master_of_the_Legend_of_St._Ursula_Virgin_and_Child.jpg is tagged as lacking a description
 * File:Hugo_van_der_Goes_-_São_Lucas_retratando_a_Virgem.jpg: source link appears broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both corrected now. Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikkimaria. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers Cas. Maybe I'll ping you when happy. And yeah smart phones can be a pain. Ceoil (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cas. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments (MPS1992) This is very well written. Here are some of my thoughts.


 * "or the Brussels' painters' guild". Are we very attached to the first of these two possessive apostrophes? It is grammatically correct, of course, but I wonder if it might still be grammatically correct without it, and also slightly less distracting.


 * "Until the Early Renaissance painters aspired to exactly follow his idealised model." Consider a comma after "Renaissance". There is also a split infinitive here, but it is possible that I am unfamiliar with the style aimed at, and whether the main authors consider such rules worth breaking on occasion.


 * "Until the Early Renaissance painters aspired to exactly follow his idealised model. Thus their depictions were relatively static. During the Early Renaissance," - I will remove the duplicate wikilink, but could there also be a way to avoid repeating "Early Renaissance" so closely?


 * "This historical link to the Holy Family explains the frequency" - the subject is now three sentences further back; perhaps this could be made easier to read.


 * "In the Van der Weyden the positioning of the main figures is reversed from the van Eyck; the Virgin appears to the right" - this appears not to be the case in the lead image. Is this correct?


 * "here she is depicted as a Maria Lactans" - I know what this means from learning Latin at school, but perhaps a gloss within commas could be added to ease the reading of those who are new to both Latin and fine art?


 * "This is one of the standard depictions of her, different from with the Hodegetria (Our Lady of the Way, or She who points the way) Virgin type most usually..." - could "with" be removed?


 * "execution completion date" - is this an artistic term? If not, removing "execution" would improve it.


 * "Mary sits under a brocade canopy which is painted in layers of beige and now appears as mostly dark green, though it was probably painted with predominant browns." This is a little messy. First we say we know what colours were used, then we say what they now appear as, then we say what similar colours were probably used. If based on one source, this could be shortened some way I think.


 * "His eyes are attentively fixed on her,[22] and seems near hypnotised" - do we need "he" added here?


 * "perhaps explained by the fact that her breast is bared" - does Hall mention this interpretation?


 * "with the same delicacy than an angel might..." - I am aware that this is a quotation, but could there be a typo "than" for "that"?
 * This is fixed now, but does Hall definitely say "a angel" not "an angel"? MPS1992 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hall describes Luke's hands as floating "up before him... "  - where does this quotation from Hall end?


 * "He is painted with more naturalism than she" - there is no mention of the female subject of the painting in this paragraph, which makes this read awkwardly.

More soon. MPS1992 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

More comments (MPS1992)


 * "their backs turned against the viewer" - could this be better as "their backs turned to the viewer" or "their backs turned towards the viewer" or something similar?


 * "both to his friend and the viewer" - I can see the sense in including this, but I think the prose would flow better by excluding it entirely


 * "Thus his thoughts on the value and role of the artist or craftsman within a wider social sphere was largely self-initiated" - perhaps there is a mismatch between the subject and verb here
 * I literally don't understand grammar. Subject and verb? Can you fix please. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have replaced "was largely self initiated" with "were largely self initiated" - plural verb (were) to agree with plural subject (his thoughts). MPS1992 (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "literally Our Lady of Milk" - is this really a literal translation?


 * "The Virgin occupies an earthly, as opposed to sacred, space but remains aloof." - consider recasting this as "The Virgin occupies an earthly space as opposed to a sacred one, but remains aloof."


 * "one-another" - the hyphen seems wrong to me, but I'm not sure. Similarly "arm-rest"


 * "Though Mary is placed by a throne and under a damask canopy, indicating her role as Queen of Heaven. She does not sit on the bench but rather on its step, an indication of her humility." - I think should perhaps all be one sentence, with a comma? Otherwise the first sentence lacks a verb.

More soon. MPS1992 (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Even more comments (MPS1992)


 * "The panel in Bruges is in the best condition and of exceptional quality, but dates from c. 1491–1510.[30] [paragraph break] The panel is usually thought to have been completed around 1435." The similarity in subjects here may lead to confusion - I assume they're not referring to the same things?


 * "It was donated to the Museum of Fine Arts in 1893 by Henry Lee Higginson after their purchase at a New York auction in 1889" - to what does "their" refer?

That's it for my comments. I have made these edits, most of which are very minor. MPS1992 (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have struck a large number of items fixed by Ceoil, just so I know where I am up to. MPS1992 (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks MPS1992, reading though and they are very helpful. Will let you know when done, and many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, all done except for the thing about the split infinitive, which I don't see. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The split infinitive seems to have been removed somewhere along the way. All my concerns have been addressed, and I am happy to Support. MPS1992 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and your support. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and many edits. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note - has there been a source review? -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Support well done. Just a very few items:
 * "This panel is considered the oldest extant Netherlandish panel depicting Luke the Evangelist painting the Virgin" I might say "believed" for "considered"
 * "veil" might be overlinking
 * "attentively fix on her,[19] and he seems near hypnotised" I might move attentively to after "her" (attentive and hypnotised? Hmmm)
 * "Compared to contemporary paintings of this type" you might want to consider moving this sentence at least two paragraphs later so that the explanation of the attributes can be their first mention.
 * "Two figures in the mid-ground stand at a battlement wall" You mentioned before they were at a bridge.
 * "a single surviving silverpoint drawing attributed van der Weyden" missing "to" before "van"?
 * Maria Lactans is linked twice and is italicised in two of the three usages.


 * Very enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are, so far as I can tell, consistently cited.--Wehwalt (talk)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.