Wikipedia:Peer review/The Garden of Earthly Delights/archive1

===The Garden of Earthly Delights===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Any suggestions or input on this difficult painting would be appreciated.

Thanks, Ceoil (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is still open and located at Peer review/The Garden of Earthly Delights/archive1.

Ruhrfisch comments: Fascinating article, quite well done and seems pretty close to FA already. Here are some pretty nit-picky suggestions for improvement:
 * Make sure that all refs follow immediately after - no space - for example The complexity of the symbolism in the triptych has led to a wide range of scholarly interpretations over the centuries, [6] needs to be fixed.
 * I fixed that one looking for others. Ceoil (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the whole article - so should the Peter S. Beagle information be repeated in the body of the article?
 * I think its ok, his view is widespread and mentioned later. Ceoil (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Should "The triptych" just be "Triptych" per Manual of Style (headings)?
 * Yes. Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably needs a cite, especially at FAC: although it was also common for such outer panels to be in grisaille for other reasons, probably including expense.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also cite The scenes depicted within are thought to follow a chronological order, flowing from left-to-right, while the exterior image is generally interpreted as set earlier than those in the interior. please
 * Not sure if this is art syle, but should English units be given as well as metric ones (inches as well as cm)?
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One sentence paragraph (Rosemarie Schuder suggested that ...) at the end of Left panel - could this be combined with the previous paragraph?
 * Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The garden is teeming with pale, nude bodies of men and women ... since at least two figures appear to be African (dark skinned) should that be mentioned? Is there any religious or symbolic signicifance associated with these black figures?
 * Took out "pale", need to expand on the black figures. Ceoil (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The two outer springs contain both men and women ... paragraph is uncited
 * Rearranged a bit, but I think its obvious enough from the painting itself. Somebody could get thorny, but unlikely. Ceoil (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Another place that needs a cite - direct quotationThis has lead some to suspect that the panel represents the world if the pair had not been driven out "among the thorns and thistles of the world".
 * Its in Gibson, will have the book again in a few hours. Ceoil (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Anger is represented by a knight torn down by a pack of wolves to the right of the "tree-man". A man lying in his bed is visited by devils punishing sloth, while a proud female gazes at her face reflected on the buttocks of a demon. needs a cite
 * Cyriac of Ancona sentences need a cite
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would use Franger instead of He in He writes that the figures in Bosch's work "are peacefully frolicking about the tranquil garden in vegetative innocence, ...
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Overall quite well done - let me know when this is at FAC. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will let you know when done. Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a million Ruhrfisch, this is most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by user:Qp10qp
I thought it was an excellent article, well-written and informative. I would certainly support it at FAC.


 * I suggest the article could be a little sharper in distinguishing agreed views (where there are any) from disputed views. For example, in the lead, we are told that "the panels are thought to portray the penalties for sins of the flesh through a complicated use of symbolism", but very soon we find out that this view is not the only one ("which may be either a moralisation on earthly temptation and sin or a celebration of sexuality"). The mixing of apparently definitive statements with contradictions continues throughout the article. For example: "The lack of colour is intended to reflect that the painting is set before the creation of the sun and moon which were formed to "give light to the earth",[10] although it was also common for such outer panels to be in grisaille for other reasons, probably including expense." The first statement seems very certain, but then it is modified by other possibilities.
 * Have worked on this, and see comments below. Difficult for the writers to weed this stuff out ourselves, wood/trees and all, but I hope the instance has been reduced by now, although not eliminated. Working..... Ceoil (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that Panofsky and Dempsey both call him "Jerome Bosch", but this name for him is not otherwise mentioned in the article. Is "Jerome" an anglicisation of Hieronymus, or Hieronymus a Latinisation of Jerome? Or something?
 * Clarified in the notes. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Art scholars have debated Bosch's iconography more extensively than that of any other Netherlandish artist.[57] Bosch's works are regarded as enigmatic, and it seems that their content refers to contemporaneous esoteric knowledge now lost to history. Art historian Erwin Panofsky wrote in 1953. This bit (and the quote which follows) seems misplaced in the "Provenance" section, since it is about interpretation.
 * I move it to "Interpretation". Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The painting was confiscated from William the Silent, great-nephew and heir of Henry III of Nassau and leader of the Dutch Revolt, and taken to Spain in 1568. Following the death in 1595 of its then owner, Don Fernando, the illegitimate son of the Duke of Alba, the Spanish commander in the Netherlands ... This historical information is a little unclear, in my opinion, and it might be worth emphasing the basic point first: that the Dutch were in revolt against the Spanish, followed by the introduction of William the Silent and Alba, and then the confiscation and the sale in Spain. Maybe we don't need to mention Henry III of Nassau in this traffic jam of names?
 * I think we do - this was inserted after someone asked how William got it. Could be rephrased though. I think personally a link to Dutch Revolt is enough to let you know there was one. Technically they were in revolt against the Duke of Burgundy, Holy Roman Emperor etc, not the Spanish. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * a nearby village. Can a village be that nearby without being part of the town?
 * Reworded. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * igniting lantern. That doesn't sound precise to me, but I'm not sure.
 * Reworded. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * resting on her lap. If I am looking at the right part of the picture, are they not resting on the man's thigh?
 * Took out. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * described in a copy of his alleged self-portrait, c 1516. That seems an odd way to put it.
 * Indeed; reworded. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Although he lived in the era of the early Renaissance, he lived before its influence spread to the north of Europe. I don't think this is right. As far as the Italian Renaissance was concerned, Bosch lived in the period of the High Renaissance. The Italian Renaissance had influenced Flemish art before Bosch, and artists such as Jan Van Eyck may have travelled back and forth between Italy and the Low Countries. Certainly the composers did.
 * Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * According to De Tolnay, "The oldest writers, Dominicus Lampsonius and Carel van Mander, attached themselves to his most evident side, to the subject; their conception of Bosch, inventor of fantastic pieces of devilry and of infernal scenes, which prevail today (1937) in the public at large, and prevailed with historians until the last quarter of the 19th century." To me, this is ungrammatical and incoherent.


 * It is followed by "In particular, the enigmatic scenes depicted on the panels of the inner triptych have been studied by many scholars, who have often come to contradictory interpretations." This does not, for me, logically follow from the quote, nor does there appear to be anything "particular" about it, since it is a generalised statement.
 * Moved to the head of the section, minus "In particular". Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Fränger held these pieces apart from the artist's other works. I wanted to change "held apart" (which is vague) to "distinguished", but I wasn't certain that was meant.
 * "Distinguished" is correct. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

-qp10qp (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thaks Qp10qp, for taking the time. I'm off on holiday for the week, but you have given a lot to work with, and thanks for that and for the copyedit. I'll report back here when I'm done. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Qp's first point is especially valid and just happens to be the toughest one to address. I don't think any of us holds the reference set required to observe how the different views fall out into consensus, if such is to be found. We need to bring the different ideas presented throughout the article into closer juxtaposition so that no one sentence comes across as the meaning of the painting. –Outriggr § 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still searching for a broad overview source; most tend to take a position one way or the other. I'm unhappy with the interpretation section yet; its not very linear and jumps from thought back to thought. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to try and help on this section; I've got a source that lays out a timeline of the interpretations and how they have changed over the centuries that I thing might be helpful here, but I haven't had the chance to read the whole thing yet. I've also recently gotten ahold of Glum's 2007 book, but I have some concerns about using it as a source (I'll elaborate if anyone is interested). I also have a book on the way about possible alchemical influences on the work (Gibson says it has some good points, although he also has some reservations). Kafka Liz (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Goofy idea - would it be possible to have the overall painting and make it a linked map so that if you clicked on a specific area of the painting such as the tree man (for example) you were taken to the close up image of the tree man (etc.)? While this would be a lot of work (and I have only a vague idea how to do it), I think it would be very neat. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not goofy at all, a great idea. But I'm clueless at this sort of thing. I might ask Tyrenius (added an image with keys naming the characters) or Victuallers (did the similar with mouse-over) for a crash course; both did great work adding similar to Las Meninas. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a linked map of Kentucky Counties in the FL on them. There was also a linked picture on the Main Page in DYK earlier this year. Glad you like the idea - sorry I can't help with it. Perhaps if the map idea were done it could be a larger image at the end of the article, close to full width. It is such a detailed painting that the current thumb at top right seems too small. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Has been taken to FAC. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)