Wikipedia:Peer review/Early Netherlandish painting/archive2

Early Netherlandish painting
This peer review discussion has been closed. Feedback, especially on structure, would be appreciated. Ceoil (talk), Victoriaearle (talk)
 * Previous peer review

Johnbod

 * Now a very impressive piece of work, well done all! On a preliminary look, I see room for a quick section summarizing the succession of leading artists, & how they related. Also one on the distinctive complexity of EN treatment of (mainly) religious iconography, stemming from van Eyck. Both would stress the importance of Van Eyck; after his great leaps forward, in many ways the style of works then developed pretty slowly for nearly a century.
 * I think we both have been weary of over emphasising van Eyck (espically in image choice!) but his centrality is fact and in the timeline section at least he can take up a majority of the discussion. Ceoil (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnbod; working (slowly) on a draft section in a sandbox. I never find the subject of van Eyck and iconography terribly easy to write about. Have made a start though. Victoria (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Iconography section done. Victoria (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Very nicely, too! Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod - that's high praise indeed! Have also restructured per your suggestion above the summarize the leading artists. I think it should work better now. Victoria (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There could/should be more on the rather complicated end of the period. The lead rightly takes the period up to the 1560s, but the rest of the article concentrates heavily on the 15th century. The Italian influence section now says: "Italian influences on Netherlandish art are first apparent in the late 1400s [nb this means 1400-1410- is this what is intended?], when some of the painters began to travel south. By then Mannerism was the predominant style in Italy, a reason why a number of later Netherlandish artists became associated with, in the words of art historian Rolf Toman, "picturesque gables, bloated, barrel-shaped columns, droll cartouches, 'twisted' figures, and stunningly unrealistic colours—actually employ[ing] the visual language of Mannerism"." - No one dates Italian Mannerism before 1520, and it was certainly not the beginning of Italian influence on ENP. "By then" needs changing - to "By 1530" perhaps, or 1540. Joachim Patinir and Pieter Aertsen need mentioning, also my new World landscape.  Breugel is the artist who continued to develop the EN legacy, and the key route through which it continued to be influential for later artists, when other artists were overwhelmed by Italian influences - this needs explaining.
 * There is a lot in this point. Starting with World landscape; I might adapt passages the landscape section here, attributing your page as I dont have those sources. I think thats allowed? Ceoil (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * re landscape Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Terminology and Scope" section spilt so that scope will deal with the very early and late periods; terminology to cover geographic range and art historical terminology. Ceoil (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do sources talk of the "Burgundian empire"? Its fatal problem was that it wasn't an empire in the technical, legalistic sense of being wholly independent, as all the territories had a feudal lord above the duke, whether the King of France or the HR Emperor.
 * No, it's the "Burgundian period". I've changed it. Victoria (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't like "The arrival of print in the 16th century devalued illumination as books became far more accessible and commonplace.[115]" though it reflects the source. The market for illuminated MS was already badly hit by the 1470s, the very top of the market surviving, while the middle & bottom pretty much vanished before 1500 - Henry VII already mainly bought (French) printed books. Price was presumably a key factor, even for royalty. People had far more books than before. I may rejig a bit.
 * Yes, this section needs a rewrite anyway. Need to research more on the contributing factors to its decline. Ceoil (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Johnbod. I agree with near of all this, will incorporate. The end of the period is difficult, no real right answer as you say, and there was good discussion on this on the talk page around two yers ago. Will have a try and ask back here and there; maybe ping some of the editors that had views at the time. Ceoil (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Johnbod. I changed Burgundian empire to Burgundian period which is more often used. I think we can extend out the end of the period but requires more immersion in sources (and a fair bit of reading). I agree it needs to be done. Victoria (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sadads
Noticed the portrait in Early_Netherlandish_painting is Non-free. Might want to consider something that has more sticking, or write a fair use justification, Sadads (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I ditched it. Ceoil (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe use the images we have on Commons as identified by Max Jakob Fried as a demonstration of the workshop/copy problem for identification in the scholarship? Sadads (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are probably better instances of breakthroughs in attribution to use. Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your the expert :) Sadads (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments
My comments will be rather haphazard and at intervals, as I am heavily engaged at the moment in another long review, as well as with my own project. I hope I will be able to get through this, as the subject is interesting and I shall enjoy helping to improve it. As a gesture of intent, here are a few comments on the lead:


 * Insert "who were" before "active in the Low Countries"
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "decline" is probably a better word than "waning"
 * It is. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "It lasts at least to the death of Gerard David in 1523;[4] many scholars extend it to the death of Pieter Bruegel the Elder in 1569, or the start of the Dutch Revolt in 1566 or 1568, or the early-17th century". Too much information here, for an overview. I would simplify to something like: "It lasts at least to the death of Gerard David in 1523,[4] though many scholars extend it to dates as late as  the early-17th century".
 * This is quite contentious, and complex; although I get what you are saying. Working on this atm. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Developed in "scope", and lead trimmed accordingly. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Early Netherlandish painting corresponds to the early- and high-Italian Renaissance..." By "corresponds", do you simply mean concurrent in terms of time? If so, "The Early Netherlandish painting period is concurrent with..." would be better wording.
 * It would. Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "it" in "it is categorised" needs to be specified.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What are "high-end panels"? Clarify if this is merely a reference to the luxury market,
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Do we need the roll-call of names in the lead – 12 in all? On the "overview" principle the list could be omitted or shortened to three or four examples.
 * Not so sure, thinking. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Trimmed, though I dislike lists accept that a role call is needed to an article of this type. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some selective referencing in the lead. Broadly speaking, any salient fact in the lead should also be in the main text, and should be referenced there, though there vcan be exceptions, e.g.direct quotations.
 * The only inlines in the lead now are explanitory footnotes.Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

More anon Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Working through these now. Just also to say there is no hurry at all with this one. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Brian. Good points and I have to confess that I always wait until the end to check the lead, so this was very useful. I echo Ceoil in saying that there is no rush. Thanks much, too, for taking on this review. Victoria (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Another couple of sections:-
 * Scope
 * Three images in the section, two enlarged to 380 and 400px respectively, which cause the text to be seriously squeezed. I can appreciate the need for an article such as this to be copiously illustrated, but great care needs to be taken over size and placement.  The domination of text by images is likely to be a FAC issue; the article  has, I think, 46 images in all, many of them very large.
 * I was working on this section on thursday night, and left it unfinished, so more to add to balance out, though I take your general point. Have cut a few images, and reduced the size of most. A few I'm yet undecided on keeping, might raise on the talk page. Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not competent to comment on the content. I have corrected a couple of typos in the section and made a few small copyedits. Other than those I have a few nitpicks, below - this will be the pattern for my review:
 * "by the 15th century northern artist " → "by 15th century northern artists"?
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "and are frequently, but not always, associated." Needs "with the school" to complete the sentence.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "The 16th century can be seen as directly leading from that of the previous century..." To what is "that" referring? It sees that a word or two may be missing.
 * Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Likewise in the following paragraph: "A full break... (from...what?)
 * Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Terminology
 * "Erwin Panofsky sometimes used the term "Ars nova" ("new art") and "Nouvelle pratique" ("new practice"), thereby linking the movement with innovative composers such as Guillaume Dufay and Gilles Binchois favoured by the Burgundian court." This is a hard sentence for the general reader to interpret. It isn't clear why Panofsky's nomenclature forms a link to the composers you mention, nor what this link consisted of.
 * I've developed a bit but would like to think about this and revisit. Victoria (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "At the time the political map of geography of Europe was very different..." Spcify "at that time"; the previous sentence refers to the 19th century.
 * Cleared up, but sect needs more work. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "fiercely independent cities" – best remove the adverb, which is slightly peacocky?
 * Indeed. Ceoil (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "do not necessarily correspond to today's maps" – I think "necessarily" is probably redundant.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The phrase: "it is more correct to think of the Duchy of Brabant" is an editorial viewpoint which needs neutralising, e.g. "the largest of these regions was the Duchy of Brabant"
 * "This argument between French and German..." What is "this argument"?
 * Tried to clarify - another one I'd like to revisit. Victoria (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you need "leads" rather than "lead", and an "and" after Pankovsky. The editorial aside "rightly or wrongly" should be deleted.
 * Likewise, "it can be argued" sounds like editorial opinion. You need to identify by whom this is argued. Incidentally, there are no citations in this final paragraph.
 * There had been some argument from time to time on the talk, so I threw this in as compromise. Will revisit. Ceoil (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Rewroded but this is thorny and needs more work. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Have strightened this out now I hope. Ceoil (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

More when I can Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian. I've taken a stab at these points, taken care of some of the smaller issues, tried to clarify a few points, will need to read a bit more to clarify a few more points, and others I'm still thinking about how to handle. Victoria (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, your comments made me realize a few holes needed to be plugged so I've rewritten slightly, added a bit, trimmed a bit, all of which should address the points above. Thanks again. Victoria (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: in view of the current level of editing activity on the article, I am pausing the review for a couple of days to allow things to settle. I'll definitely be back, though. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm resuming. Here are comments on two more sections:


 * Timeline
 * The content does not really reflect a "timeline", which is normally in the form of a graphic list. Perhaps "Chronological summary"?
 * Have gone with "Chronology" Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "...the Netherlandish artist known as Hand G of the 'Turin-Milan Hours'" – I am not quite sure how to read this. I imagine that "Hand G" identifies the artist, and should therefore be in quotes. Also, for clarity, "who painted the" rather than "of the"?
 * Ok, but he only painted part of it - there are "Hands" A-H identified in the manuscript. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence (actually a quote because I'm very tired and it's all I can manage at the moment) to clarify this. Will probably revisit to smooth it over. Victoria (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "a consolidating change"? Again, not clear what this means.
 * Clarified this - A significant development came with Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "patronisation" → "patronage"?
 * Yes. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "A number were financially successful..." A number of what?
 * Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Philip the Good" does not appear to be linked on this first mention (he may be, later)
 * Oops. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Master of the Life of the Virgin - unless this is in quotes, and preceded by "the painter known as", it will perplex readers. They shouldn't be forced to use the lin to find th meaning.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "who had already passed beyond the High Gothic." –needs more explanation, and the "already" is undefined.
 * "who had already developed a style seperate to..." Ceoil (talk)


 * The sentence beginning: "Some 16th-century painters followed..." is far too long, and also reads confusingly. It seems to be saying that some painters followed traditional paths, but at the same time geban moving away from them. I think splitting and some rewording is needed.
 * Done: Ceoil (talk)


 * You should not use editorial observations such as "tellingly".
 * Removed that word. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * (last paragraph) "humanism": are you using this word in its present meaning, the rejection of religion and the church in favour of a belief that humankind controls its own destiny? That seems a very advanced position for the 16th century.
 * Lk Renaissance humanism, but it's not necessary to spell this out in the text. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Added link. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Technique and material
 * "The first generation of artists..." Need to specify more clearly who you mean by these
 * Agree, done. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "It dries slowly..." etc – another very long sentence that needs to be split. Hard to follow as it is.
 * Split this into a few sentences, but need to revisit. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * (2nd paragraph, last line) maybe "typically" would be more neutral than "notably"
 * Agree. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Typically the frames of hinged works are engaged..." –what does "engaged" mean in this context?
 * Made clearer. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It may take me another week or so to finish this, as I have other things on, but I'll try and do a little each day. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these Brian. I'm only getting to these as/when I can (hence the flurry of activity a week or so ago), so no worries. I was just about to log out and might have to be gone again for a few days, so might not get to these too quickly - but I don't mind if they pile up. Thanks again so much for taking the time to read. Victoria (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Another instalment:
 * Patronage


 * First sentence is of excessive length. Suggest break after "ascendancy"
 * Split into a few sentences, but needs more work. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "From the mid-15th century, Netherlandish painting was driven by the market". This has substantially been said in the last sentence of th previous paragraph. Suggest merge the sentences.
 * Removed it in the end. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "However for the top end of the market, the process was very different."  The "however" is redundant, "upper end" rather than "top end", and "the process was very different" is not expressed encyclopedically. Thus: "A different process applied to the upper end of the market."
 * Used this phrasing, which is much more to the point. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Could "taste makers" be expressed more elegantly? Perhaps "arbiters of taste" or similar?
 * Yes. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The consolidation of the ducal households..." What is meant by this?
 * Clarified. Victoria (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Some gained enormous power..." Clarify to whom "some" refers.
 * Clarified. Victoria (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Maryan Ainsworth of the Metropolitan Art Museum believes the merchant class commissioned a significant number of devotional panels, often smaller pieces, and those frequently emphasising specifically requested themes, images and motifs.". Something amiss with the latter part of the sentence. Perhaps remove the comma after "pieces" and drop "frequently", which is particularly awkward after "often"
 * Rewrote most of this, but need to return to it. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I tweaked a bit more. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Iconography


 * "Morally the works expresses a fearful outlook, but evidence a respect for restraint and stoicism." Plural v. singular conflict in "expresses" and "evidence". I don't think a "but" conjunction is justified, and I have some doubts about "a fearful outlook" as an expression of morality.
 * Fixed the grammar - thinking about "fearful" because something like Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych shows a fairly fearful outlook in the crucifixion panel. That said, might trim it out. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We might develop this, from Stefan Lochner's to Rogier's Last Judgment. Have sources comparing, thinking. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "However the emphasis on technique should not be seen as the cause..." Sorry, can't follow. Should there be a pause, i.e. a comma, after "However"? Even so, should not be seen as the cause ... of what?
 * I've tried to rewrite. Let me know if it's still difficult to parse and I'll have another go at it. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "van Eyck's "religious works always present the spectator with a transfigured view of visible reality" – I would start the quote at "always present", otherwise it looks strange and reads oddly.
 * Yes, done this. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Much of the iconography consists of symbols showing "the promised passage from sin and death to salvation and rebirth". Who opines this?
 * Ward, as in the previous sentence, so combined the two to avoid repetition. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Final paragraph: my problem here is that, after the opening summary sentence: "Van Eyck's influence was huge, and deeply infused both his contemporaries and later artists", the rest of the paragraph seems to be indicating how distinct these contemporaries and successors were from van Eyck. Perhaps it's just my reading, but it's worth you taking a look.
 * Have tried to tweak - it is supposed to say that the contemporaries were distinct from van Eyck. Perhaps more clear now? Victoria (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A little more:
 * Thanks for these! Victoria (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Formats


 * Do we need to mention (and link) "tapestry" in both of the first two sentences?
 * Nope, removed. I'll be using the duplicate link tool later to resolve duplicate link issues as well. But thanks for pointing out the overlinking in a single sentence! Victoria (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding: what's your opinion about having duplicate links in an article of this scope? My sense is that if done correctly it's probably okay because otherwise the top half will have a plethora of links with many fewer links in the bottom half. Victoria (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In an article of this length, duplicate or even triplicate links are fine when there are considerable distances between mentions of a name or term. It's a matter of judgement as to what might constitute overlinking; linking twice in the same section would definitely be over the top. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be against linking say art terms twice. No so much for linking art historians - eg if we say Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Wall hangings and books..." Does "books" mean illuminated manuscripts?
 * Yes. Victoria (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand "whereas", which generally means "as opposed to", and does not make sense in the sentence. Are you intending the meaning "as a result of which"?
 * As opposed to is correct: the ducal patrons favored other forms over portraits. At least that's the point I was trying to get across. Can have another go at it if it's difficult to understand. Victoria (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed a hidden comment in the text, querying your use of the word "movable": The comment said: "any chance this word can go? (Why yes, it's movable!)". I'm not sure what the problem is; I don't object to the word myself.
 * I've replaced with portable which is more accurate, but I think the sentence might need a slight bit of clarification. You'll find lots of hidden comments - it's a system we've used successfully for a long time and I always check that they're resolved, and in fact have gone through and fixed a number of them now. Victoria (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that making points via hidden comments is a highly inefficient method of review. First, there is no guarantee that the comments will be seen. Secondly, how do you respond to such points if you disagree with them? I can't see how this form of secrecy is preferable to open reviewing—it just seems like extra work to me. However, if you are happy to accept such comments I'll disregard them in my own review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As a general comment, I observe that not all the information in this opening paragraph seems relevant to "formats", e.g. "Burghers and other members of the middle class commissioned and bought paintings, an aspect of demand that Campbell considers important and easily overlooked."
 * Yes, thanks for noting. Trimmed away. Victoria (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks btw - I was rushing yesterday and forgot to mention how much we appreciate this review, particularly on such a long article. Victoria (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Illuminated manuscripts


 * "By the turn of the 14th century, the largely Gothic manuscripts coming from Paris were the major source of supply." Needs rewording: the manuscripts were the supply, not the sources of supply.
 * "...the popularity of the Netherlandish producers" – maybe a better word than "producers" ("masters", "craftsmen"?)
 * I suggest a pipe-link for "liturgical texts"
 * Another hidden comment in the second paragraph askes for clarification of the period/century which is the subject of this paragraph.
 * Yes, I added this. Don't have access to these sources. Victoria (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Third para: "Paris was overtaken as the centre of production in the 1440s by Bruges and Ghent". This repeats information from the first para, so needs to be expressed slightly differently here.
 * "...achieved by the artists working there" – you will need to be more specific about the nature of "there".
 * "The Limbourg brothers' work marks perhaps the high point of "manipulative realistic imagery" with their ornate Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry." This is presumably covered by the Harbison citation at the end of the next sentence, but as a specific opinion is expressed, it ought to be specifically attributed to the source.
 * "van Eyk" and "Jan van Eyk" in the same paragraph
 * "superior" artist? Superior to whom?

Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Got these, thanks once again. Just on inlines - These are mostly myself and Victoria leaving reminders for ourselves and for each other, and we have been using them a long time. The each other ones ofthen are neglected. Riggr and other VA editors we work with also cmt this way when helping us (often as a way to make fun of my spelling grrr, but usually helpfully); those are responded to very quickly and I wouldn't discourage. Differing styles is all. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet more... the end is not yet in sight, but we're getting there slowly. Three more sections:
 * Single devotional panels


 * "Prayer and meditative contemplation were means to attain salvation, while the very wealthy could also undertake the establishment of churches or extensions, or commission artworks or other devotional pieces." I am uncertain of the purpose/relevance of this sentence after the word "salvation".
 * I've clarified hopefully. Simply put, the wealthy could buy salvation through commissioning works of art, etc., whereas those without the means had to pray (presumably more). Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Mary could have left no bodily relics" – why are the words "could have" necessary?
 * Removed. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The appreciation for Byzantine idealisation of Marian icons and the concept of purgatory were at their heights." I found it impossible to parse this sentence, or to work out what it means. Had to give up.
 * I've cut it. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Last sentence: "his innovation" – from the previous sentence it seems that VdW "imitated", rather than innovated.
 * He did both - imitated what existed by using innovative techniques. I've tried to clarify a bit. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Triptychs and altarpieces


 * Second paragraph: there is some repeated material in the first and second sentences, which makes me feel they could be merged.
 * Yes, done. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Van der Weyden was especially innovative" – I queried "innovative" in the previous section. Perhaps it is more appropriate here, but please check. I am not sure about "especially", which veers away from neutral expression, as does the "as can be seen" which follows.
 * I have checked this and I think it's an accurate summary of a very long multipage passage delineating the manner in which Rogier van der Weyden mixed up the traditional placements of holy family and saints on the panels. Removed the "as can be seen". Victoria (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with "especially", and the sources would support. As Johnbod mentions above, van Eyck, and I think van der Weyden, made huge advances which somewhat oveshadow northern painting for the next 100 years. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "...the best of which subverted existing conventions." Source?
 * Acres - will revisit - see my comment below about Jstor and losing access to sources. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentence beginning "After Mannerism came to the fore..." badly needs splitting, probably into three. (Any single sentence that contains "while" and "when" and "with" is getting above itself!)
 * Yes, thanks. Split into three. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Diptychs


 * "The vast majority of donors were male; Andrea Pearson ascribes this to the fact that women were encouraged to pay devotion in private rather than public spaces". Two things: first, I imagine this to be generally true, not just for diptychs. Secondly, another reason, surely, whole male donors predominate overwhelmingly is that men held all the economic and social power.
 * I'll have to re-read the source (sorry, had a heart attack when I lost access to Jstor and all my sources and I actually called them on the phone about it!) but this is an important point because there was a difference between spaces that were merely "quiet" and spaces that were "private". Plenty of women of means had devotional works, books and such, but unlike men, they typically kept their devotions in "private spaces", chambers, behind screens in churches where they were hidden, etc. Multipanel works were mostly commissioned for public spaces whereas small devotional works (diptychs) could be used in homes, but even then a woman would have had to retreat somewhere (to a chamber if she had one) to make her devotions. This is true of medieval women readers too. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this since writing the longish post above and am thinking that this is point that possibly not all that relevant (as you pointed out). I might pull it out. Haven't quite decided yet. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Do either of the two images illustrate anything in the text? If so, could we have slightly more informative captions? Another thing is the MOS violation of squeezing text between images. I wonder whether we actually need both pics?
 * I'll work on the captions - but the one on the left is a rare surviving sample of a devotional piece that's not been broken apart, still has its frames and is free (extremely rare!) so I'd want to keep that. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "salable" is US spelling. I think the article uses BritEng.
 * Will leave this to the non-American English speakers to sort out. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I've done most of these; will report back after re-reading sources on the others. Victoria (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Inch by inch...


 * Portraiture


 * "arguably more influential on the following generations of painters." We need to have an indication of who argued this.
 * Yes, attributed. Victoria (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "there is a noticeable similarity in his portraits" – possibly "there are noticeable similarities in his portraits" reads better?
 * Thanks, have used your wording. Victoria (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "...and is all the more notable as it is likely van Eyck himself who stares out at us." Nicely put, but needs to be expressed in less personal terms – encyclopedic impersonality and all that.
 * Took a stab at this - might need another go. Victoria (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Yet the gaze of the sitter rarely engages the viewer." You need to clarify that you have moved from the particular (Van Eyck's self-portrait) to the general, and in rephrasing you should ose the "yet".
 * I've moved the sentence but kept the "yet" because I think it now makes more sense in context to explain that the sitters looked out at the viewer without engaging their gaze. Victoria (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The portraits were not usually executed with the subject sitting for the artist for long periods" Too cumbersome. You could shorten to "Potraits did not generally require lengthy sittings".
 * Yes, thanks, much better. Victoria (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tapestry


 * "excelled" is the wrong word in the first line – production cannot "excel". Perhaps "proliferated" or similar word
 * Yes, you're right. Thanks and fixed. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "these craftsmen" — no previous reference to craftsmen in the section
 * Substituted with weavers. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You should specify Pope Julius II
 * Fixed. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "woven into hangings" – will readers immediately appreciate that hangings = tapestry?
 * Clarified I hope. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "as seen in the surviving example handed to Philip the Good at the Congress of Arras in 1435" – "as seen in" without ant identifying detail, is frustrating.
 * Excellent point. Will have to dig and see if we have this on Commons or find on the Met site. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Searched, can't find! Victoria (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Thats because the statement was incorrect. He gave out several existing tapestries, and not as been implied, recieved a specially produced commeration. Sorry about that. Ceoil (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "textiles provided easy to put together environments for conducting religious or civic ceremonies." I can't work this out. Perhaps "easy to put together" means "easily assembled", but how can textiles provide environments?
 * They were used as decoration to change interior settings/rooms/environments. I've tried to clarify this, but might have another stab. Example here File:Charles VI and Richard II sign truce copy.jpg - and part of this particular truce was to decide which tapestries to use! Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "considered at the first mark" – pesumably meaning the most superior?
 * Ceoil has this source so leaving this for now. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Charles V of France had 57..." 57 what?
 * Fixed. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest you pipe-link "cartoons" thus: cartoons
 * Nice idea. Thanks and done. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "He interacted directly..." – who is "he"?
 * Clarified I think. Ceoil can have another go at this one too. Victoria (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

And so we go on.... Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nearly done now...


 * Landscape


 * "Because most of the settings contained commissioned donor portraits, very often the landscapes were tame and controlled, in harmony with the warm idealised interior setting." I am confused by this sentence. Two different meanings for the term "setting"?
 * "who had already segued interior and exterior pictorial spaces" – what does this mean?
 * "This changed towards the end of the 15th century..." Not clear what "this" refers to.
 * Link "still life" (unless previously linked recently)
 * Second paragraph: "in nature" rather than "to nature". But why not just "representing things naturally"?
 * "Hieronymus Bosch adapted elements of the World landscape style in his single panel paintings; in his major works they serve as a backdrop for crowds of figures and are not as concerned to include a variety of landscape elements." I have difficulty parsing the second part of this sentence.
 * I suggest "world landscape" not "World landscape"
 * I got lost somewhere in the final sentence of the section - needs clarifying.
 * Relationship to the Italian Renaissance


 * The last sentence of the first aragraph requires a citation.
 * Found and put back. Victoria (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "there was an established trade in their works" – would it be clearer to say "an established north-south trade"?
 * Iconoclasm

Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "...is an insightful look at the appearance..." Encyclopedic neutrality requires something like: "is an indication of the appearance", unless you are able to attribute "insightful".
 * Yes, I've attributed this. Victoria (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these Brian! If I don't get to some of them tonight (very busy in real life (and tired too!)), I'll start working my way through them tomorrow. As you say, almost there! Can't thank you enough - it is a marathon. Victoria (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: leaving the "Landscape" section for Ceoil - I don't have those sources. Victoria (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think landscape is done now. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

These are my final detailed comments:


 * Documentation


 * "Establishing the names of Netherlandish masters and attributing specific works has been challenging." You need a less emphatic, more neutral statement along the lines: "There have been difficulties in establishing the names of Netherlandish masters and attributing specific works".
 * Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "to this day", which provides no time reference, should be avoided
 * Clarified, but tricky - some artists considered of the first rank by art historians have no public profile precisely because there is no historical name has been associated with them. Need to say more clearly, but see below. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "His oeuvre has since shrunk..." The last person mentioned is Hubert, but I think "His" refers to Jan van Eyck – needs clarifying
 * Clarified. The work of both jan and hubert are fewer than once thought, for different reasons; clearier on the page now I hope. Ceoil (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "names of convenience" should be in inverted commas, if it is generally-used term
 * A very difficult term in English, had cobbled together an article using a deritive of the German word, which is linked in the following sentence. Ok yes, italixed now. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "It is probably a truism to say..." Such formulations must be avoided. See WP:EDITORIALISING
 * Removed & rephrased. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The lack of surviving theoretical writing on art and recorded opinion from any of the major artists..." – probably should be "from any of the pre-16th century major artists..." – if Durer was the first.
 * I've rephrased here but would like Ceoil to double-check the source (which I don't have) to be certain this only applies to pre-16th cent. Otherwise we should rephrase. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "A more probable explanation..." - according to whom?
 * Attributed. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rediscovery


 * The link on "Mary of Hungary" goes to the 14th century queen, though I suspect it might be meant for here. Even so, can she and Philip II of Spain  really be described as "modern royals"?
 * Thanks for the catch. I've rephrased a bit there. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Some introduction should be given to Schlegel, other than the link
 * Yep, done. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "early and necessary..." I'd drop the "necessary" (editorial voice?)
 * I've dropped it but must re-read the source. If I remember correctly it was thought to be necessary. Adding: I've left as is per the source. Victoria (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "newly-emerged" → "newly-created"?
 * Much better. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Prince Albert" needs a link, and the later reference to the Prince Consort is to the same person
 * Yes, should have been done. Thanks and now linked. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "a ground-breaking acquisition" – what ground was thereby broken?
 * I believe this is important but don't have the source it's cited to. There are others and will dig a bit, or Ceoil can answer. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "today's taste" – again, no time reference.
 * Removed. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "At the turn of the 19th century..." – you mean the turn of the 20th century, or you could say "beginning of the 20th century" to be absolutely clear.
 * Thanks. Third time I've gotten that wrong for some reason. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "thought to be" – this form always raises the question "thought by whom"?
 * Removed. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Does the qualifying phrase "to an extent" apply to both van Eyck and van der Weyden (as the present punctuation implies), or just to the latter?
 * Both, according to the source. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Final paragraph. First sentence needs splitting for clarity
 * Split. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Scholarship and conservation


 * As this is a new section, "The most significant early research..." needs to be explicated
 * Good point. Done. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Panofsky was one of the first art historians to abandon formalism". Term should be linked/explained
 * Yes, done. Victoria (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Phew! That is probably the longest of the 600-odd peer reviews I've done, but I don't mind. This is a very worthwhile article that shows some true scholarship, and the main editors can be proud of it, however it may fare at FAC. Since my knowledge of the subject matter is slight (though more, now, than when I started) my review has necessarily consisted mainly of nitpicks and presentation issues, but it is worth getting these right for the sake of the article's overall quality. I will follow its further progress with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see you finish too - maybe now you can get on with the rest of your life and work on wiki! All these cmts and the time youve taken are really appreciated. You'll notice some of the more difficult earlier ones are not resolved yet, we are plowing through but will get to them in the next week or so. Its not lost how much attention, thought and work you have put in here. All I can say is tks. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ceoil said it better than I could - all I can do is echo what he's said. Thanks so much for the time! You've given us many excellent points to work on. Victoria (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Tim riley
I'm jotting down a few points to contribute to this review, but before I press on can you say which variety of English the article is intended to be in? Quotations apart, the text seems mostly to be in British English (using these BrEng spellings: "categorised", "centre", "characterised", "colour", "colouring", "colours", "crystallising", "emphasise", "emphasising", "favour", "favoured", "idealisation", "idealised", "jewellery", "labour", "moralisation", "notarised", "organisation", "patronisation", "recognised", "specialisation", "specialised", "specialising", "unfavourable", "unidealised" and "utilised") but the occasional American spelling pops up: I spotted "capitalized", "catalog", "center", "color", "labeled", "recognized" and "traveled", none of them within quotations. – Tim riley (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * BrEng we were thinking. I've fixed the ones you found, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I have very meagre gleanings to offer, Bold Sir Brian B having harvested so thoroughly.
 * Thanks Tim for bringing attention to this and especially thanks for the typo patrol. I'm afraid I'm the culprit for the American English and will bear it in mind now that much of the drafting is finished. Victoria (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments from Tim
 * Terminology and scope
 * Being utterly pernickety, I draw your attention to two "due to"s in close proximity in the fourth para. Perhaps turn the second into "because of"?
 * "In the early 1500s artists began to explore illusionistic depictions of three dimensions" – I think I know what you mean, but I had to read it twice to be sure. I can't think of any better wording, but I leave you with the thought.
 * Chronology
 * "artists from today's France" – a suggestion of time travelling here. Perhaps "artists from what is now France"?
 * Thanks, have used your suggestion. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "either Jan van Eyck" – not blue-linked here but he is so linked in the next para; best to move the link up
 * I'm not sure I fixed here, but fixed the same in another section and thanks for noting. Getting the linking right throughout, or as right as can be for an article like this, should be on our to do list. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "significant figures such as Hungarian king" – this is as good a point as any to mention that you have the word "significant" 17 times throughout the text. After a while it becomes vaguely noticeable, and the pedantic question comes to mind, "what did it/he signify?" Such near-synonyms as "important", "dominant", "considerable" and "influential" might be pressed into service instead from time to time.
 * Good point. Will have to be weeded out throughout. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Technique and material
 * "It dries slowly and thus manipulated" – "and thus can be manipulated…"?
 * Reworded. I think that's bolded above and it's one that requires a revisit. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "mainly because the perishability" – "mainly because of the perishability"?
 * Thanks for the catch. Fixed. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Guild and workshop system
 * "in order to be allowed" – I'd lose the "in order"" – never necessary in such a construction
 * Yep. It's lost. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "the master had passed" – he hadn't passed, passed over, passed on or passed out: he was dead. WP:EUPHEMISM
 * So he is. And so, fixed. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Patronage
 * "guilds which amongst other things" – one of my constant bleats: what has "amongst" got that "among" hasn't, other than two unnecessary letters
 * Another good catch. Thanks and fixed. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "the patron has little say…" – "…had little say…"?
 * Same as above. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That's the end of my first batch of comments. More anon. Tim riley (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Painters not only exported goods but exported themselves" – after all the carping, above, pray allow me to compliment you on this delectable, elegant construction.
 * Thanks Tim for going through and for the comments. I got the easier ones; a few require a peek at source, which I will have time for tomorrow. Thanks too for the typo patrols; those haven't gone unnoticed. Victoria (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate links: apropos your remark, above, about finding duplicate links, there is an excellent device at the left hand side of the article page under "Tools" – "Highlight duplicate links", which takes the effort out of checking. Using this I see you have the following duplicate links in the main text to names and topics already linked in previous paras (ignoring further duplications in image captions, which are seemingly permissible): The Manual of Style is pretty clear about links: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I dabble in articles on composers, where we seem to have reached an informal understanding with which the FAC delegates and reviewers have been happy, viz that if the article is a "Life and Works" piece, it's OK to have people or terms linked (once) in the Works section even if they've already been linked in the Life section. There may be some similar rationale applicable to large articles on art, such as this, but you'll want to ponder the point. In short, what is likely to be helpful to the reader? Tim riley (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Chronology
 * Jan van Eyck, Robert Campin, Hans Memling, woodcuts, Jan Gossaert, Gerard David, Quentin Matsys, Albrecht Dürer, Hieronymus Bosch, humanism
 * Technique and material
 * Panofsky
 * Guild and workshop system
 * Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych
 * Patronage
 * Tüchlein (and you need to decide whether to capitalise the word or not), Hans Memling
 * Iconography
 * Madonna of Chancellor Rolin
 * Illuminated manuscripts
 * Jean, Duke of Berry, Turin-Milan Hours
 * Triptychs and altarpieces
 * engraving, Hieronymus Bosch
 * Portraiture
 * Petrus Christus, Hans Memling (his fourth link – have you got shares in him?), Martin Schongauer, betrothal, Albrecht Dürer
 * Diptychs
 * House of Valois-Burgundy, our old friend Hans Memling, donor portraits
 * Tapestry
 * Raphael, cartoons, Jean de Berry
 * Landscape
 * Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych, Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin, Hieronymus Bosch (who is closing on Hans Memling in the Blue Link Stakes), Antwerp
 * Relationship to the Italian Renaissance
 * Renaissance humanism
 * Destruction and dispersal
 * Protestant reformation, iconoclasm, Madonna in the Church
 * Documentation
 * notname, Stefan Lochner, Simon Marmion
 * Rediscovery
 * Mannerism, Northern Renaissance, Karel van Mander, Hubert van Eyck, Antwerp, Brussels, Leuven, Johan Huizinga, Georges Hulin de Loo
 * Scholarship and conservation
 * Max Jakob Friedländer, Erwin Panofsky
 * Ser Brian is a tough man to follow, but these are most helful, many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Two things: Yikes & and got all these. . Ceoil (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Round Two
 * Iconography
 * "Morally the works expresses" – I suppose this is a typo for "Morally the works express" but then again perhaps it should be "Morally the work expresses", in view of which doubt I have not changed it. Over to you.
 * It's a mistake and I've fixed. Thanks for catching. Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "His harmoniously blended realism and symbolism creates a vision" – I'm struggling with the grammar here: if you read it literally it = "His A and B creates", which can't be right. Perhaps "His harmonious blend of realism and symbolism creates"?
 * Very nice and much better. Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Fourth para" – a masterly opening, if I may say so. Carries the reader along with a tremendous swing.
 * "much of the iconography revolve" – more problems with singular nouns and plural verbs
 * Thanks, fixed (bad habit I have with these! I know better!) Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "the idea that, according to John Ward, "the promised passage from sin and death to salvation and rebirth"" – something missing here. Do you mean "the idea that, according to John Ward, there is a "promised passage from sin and death to salvation and rebirth"?
 * Yes, I prefer that. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Many of paintings" – "Many of the paintings" or "Many paintings"?
 * Another mistake. Fixed now. Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "traditions of the earlier centuries absorbed" – "were absorbed"?
 * Yes, that's better. Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "tended to be centred around" – some people (probably the same people who think a split infinitive is a mortal sin) get very aerated about "centred around", and insist it should be "centred on". For the sake of a quiet life I try to stick to the latter.
 * Will give you a quiet life and have changed to "on". Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Last para – there are a lot of "formats" in this para (two in the last sentence). If possible, you might change one of them, though I have no useful synonym to suggest.
 * Yes, this needs thought and something Ceoil does better than I. Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Formats
 * "while van der Weyden designed tapestries" – some people (including me) dislike "while" used as a synonym for "and" or "although". "While" is probably best kept for cases where there is simultaneity, but that said, your usage here is perfectly good English, and you may feel inclined to tell me where I can put my personal preferences.
 * Went through the article changing. Agree by the way. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "the crystallization of new conventions" – I'm not sure what you're getting at with "crystallization" here.
 * Changed to design for the moment. Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Illuminated manuscripts
 * "conferred notions … to their owners" – I think you confer on, not to.
 * yes. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "with more junior painters assisting" – in the context I wonder if "more" is wanted here
 * I've tried "additional". The point being made is that it took a team of master painters and apprentices to produce the more elaborate panels. Want to think about how to rephrase. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Netherlandish artists found increasingly inventive and innovative ways to highlight and differentiate their ability from manuscripts produced in surrounding countries" – I don't think this sentence works. I think perhaps you mean "Netherlandish artists found increasingly inventive and innovative ways to highlight and differentiate their manuscripts from those produced in surrounding countries."
 * Rephrased slightly. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Triptychs and altarpieces
 * "The central panels' mid-ground were populated" – plural–singular–plural. Not sure what to do about it, but it looks wrong. Do you think, perhaps, "In central panels the mid-ground was populated"?
 * Yes, that's less bulky. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "the exterior, which now were" – "exteriors"?
 * Yep, rephrased. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

End of round two. One last batch and I'll be done. This is a mightily impressive article. In passing, is there a reason for the section order Triptychs and altarpieces – Portraiture – Diptychs? To a layman's eye the more natural order would be Triptychs and altarpieces – Diptychs – Portraiture, but what do I know? Back tomorrow, probably. – Tim riley (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim. Lots of mistakes and all mine, I'm ashamed to admit. I'll get to them a little later today. I really appreciate the close reading. Victoria (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Got about half of these. Ceoil is more familiar with the other sections and can probably get those better, as well as the explanation about why the structure is as it is. Victoria (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Last lot of comments from Tim


 * Portraiture
 * Third para – rather a lot of engaged/engaging in this para.
 * "in the Burgundian Netherlands, however," – does the "however" add anything here? I think the sentence would be stronger without it
 * "were now able to afford to commission" – "could now afford to commission" would cut out a jingling repetition of "to"
 * Fixed a couple of these, but this is Ceoil's bailiwick more than mine. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Diptychs
 * "often a crest of arms" – (Tim going into pedant overdrive, stand well clear) the crest is the thing on the top of the arms, surmounting the coat of arms (the shield). There is a technical name for the whole shooting match, but it wouldn't be helpful to your readers. "Coat of arms" is not technically correct, but is less incorrect than "crest of arms", and I'd be inclined to go for that.
 * Thanks, (interesting!), fixed. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In no circumstances allow anyone seriously interested in heraldry to try to explain things to you: you will be bored into a catatonic trance. The only person likely to challenge "coat of arms" here is the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl Marshal of England, and if he looks in and starts throwing his weight about you can refer him to me. Tim riley (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's always someone somewhere, with a big nose who knows. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "solitary devotion – exemplified by the Devotio Moderna movement – grew" – I've just noticed that you have en dashes here, but em dashes are your norm. Perhaps make them consistent here and check elsewhere in the article for stray en dashes.
 * Should be endashes throughout! Will go through and make consistent to some kind of dash. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Tapestry
 * "the Metropolitan Museum of Art" – I don't think you have linked this earlier in the main text, and possibly a blue link would be appropriate here
 * "an entrepreneur, usually a trained painter. This entrepreneur" – I think you might make the second entrepreneur "He", to the benefit of the flow of the prose.
 * "agreeing to the design" – as it was evidently a joint decision, perhaps "agreeing the design"
 * I've linked the Met. Leaving the rest to Ceoil as he has the sources for this section. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Iconoclasm
 * "explains Nash" – a touch editorialising, suggesting that you endorse what Nash says. Perhaps "according to Nash", or "in Nash's view"?
 * Yes, this was done in haste. Fixed now. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Documentation
 * "the turn of the 19th century" – your use of the phrase is impeccable, but as some people get muddled about whether the turn of a century is at the beginning or end I'd play for safety and say "the start…"
 * Changed - but needs Ceoil to re-check it. I don't have that source. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Rediscovery
 * "aside from official legal documents" – as you're opting for BrEng I'd go for "apart from" rather than the American "aside from".
 * Fixed. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "the Prince Consort" – not all readers will know that Prince Albert was the Prince Consort, and I think it would be helpful to call him just "Albert" at this second mention
 * Have done that. Needs a re-visit - bit of a long sentence. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Notes
 * Note K – in BrEng you don't meet with people but just meet them
 * Thanks, fixed. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note R – "developed on" seems odd; perhaps "built on" or just "developed"?
 * Changed to "built on". Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, that's my lot. It is an article of considerable scholarship lightly worn in the most readable prose. It has been a privilege to be associated with it as a reviewer and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. Please tip me the wink when you're taking it there. Tim riley (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim, I got some of these. Thanks too for the praise. It's certainly been a fair amount of work and we're more than grateful to reviewers who are taking the time to get through this. Victoria (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Automatic JavaScript suggestions
(t) Josve05a  (c)  23:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks Josve05a, have a incorporated some of these which were helpful. Ceoil (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)