Wikipedia:Peer review/Early Netherlandish painting/archive1

Early Netherlandish painting

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is still at an early stage of development, but I would like guidance as to where to take it from here in terms of focus/coverage, structure etc. Also as its inevitable going be a large article, I would like to iron any current problems reviewers might identify, rather than be faced with a humgous taks at a pre FAC PR. I appreciate that reviewing the page is a big task, but any bits of feedback would be appreciated. Tks, Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Here are a few points that I hope you will find helpful. From what you say, you recognise that the article needs a considerable amount of work; hopefully my suggestions will be helpful in that respect. I don't have expert knowledge in this area, but to my eye the text appears comprehensive and of an appropriately scholarly tone. It is the presentation and the final polishing which are the main issues.

• The lead, at around 650 words, might be a little too long; it looks quite a slab of prose. Some of the detail could perhaps be trimmed.

  Done, but needs to be re-drafted post cut and paste.Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Do we need two lead images? Also, magnifying the Arnolfini to 300px makes it seem overbearing; I would reduce this to 250px, and remove or reposition the other.

  I want two lead images, and have used the two that are by some distance the two most signifant paintings. Have reduced the size of both. Captions to follow. Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• As the lead image, the Arnolfini should have a bit more caption, to explain its particular significance to this period in art history and thus its justification as the lead image.

  Agree, doing. Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• On images generally: sad to say, I think there are far too many of them (I think I counted 30). They are mostly great to look at, but they tend to swamp the text, to the extent that much of the wording is squeezed between images. The number and in some cases size of images tends to distract the reader. It is not clear why so many images are necessary; I would think that in an article of this length, about half this number of images would be adequate, so if I were you I would instigat a selection process.

  I have reduced, but the article is shorter now than it will eventually be. Is at an intermediately stage, I'm taking stock. 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Map: this purports to show the Burgundian lands as in 1477, but even when I viewed it enlarged, and used a magnifying glass, I could not interpret the key, so I don't know what the significance is of the various colours. Maybe some of the detail in the caption could be exchanged for a brief explanation of the map?

  Changed maps, but this is a tough one. I have a v good map in one of the NG sources, and am seriously considering asking them if they will allow me to use it. 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the prose in any detail, but a few quick glanes at the text reveal that a copyedit is necessary. A few random examples of glitches:

• "As artistic centers Bruges and Ghent flourished the fifteenth century" (the word "in" is missing)

Fixed. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The early Netherlandish masters' influence also reached artists such as Stefan Lochner and the Master of the Life of the Virgin, who, working in mid-15th-century Cologne, drew inspiration from imported commissions by van der Weyden and Bouts, painters who had already passed beyond the High Gothic". Far too much detail in a single sentence and thus hard to grasp
• "one of the most important and well-known of the Netherlandish painters": no hyphen in this usage
• "As in Florence, where banking and trade led to numerous private commissions, wealthy merchants commissioned religious paintings for private devotion (often including themselves in the form of donor portraits) as well as secular portraits." Where are you saying that "wealthy merchants commissioned religious paintings..." etc, as well as in Florence?

Another over-ambitious single sentence: "It dries slowly and thus can be manipulated while still wet, giving the artist more time to add subtle detail[31] and allow hatching, wet-on-wet painting and the ability to achieve smooth transition of colours and tones by removing layers of paint to expose those below." There are quite a few of these

• "The Burgundian dukes were regarded by royalty as far as Italy and Spain" What does it mean, that they were "regarded by royalty"?

• There is a mix of British and American spelling. Thus we have "colours" and "centers". Consistency necessary

Haha, don't look at me there ;) Working on fixing. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• A great deal of the text is presently uncited, but this is presumably something that is in hand and will be dealt with as a matter of course.

• Yes, the "Terminology and scope" and Italian sections specifically. Both are from when I started on the page, have only now built up enough sources to deal with. Well aware and doing. Ceoil (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• A number of your "notes" are themseves uncited statements that need to be referenced.

  Eek, fixing. Ceoil (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• There are two Ainsworths in the sources, but as far as I can see, no citations to either.

  Banished, though both will be used. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Minor point: page ranges in references need ndashes not hyphens. You also need to be consistent in formatting of ranges; at present, for example, there is "21–23" and "104–7". Also "277–283" and "411–12"

If you wish to raise anything arising from this review, or want me to look again, please contact me via my talkpage as I am not able to watch individual reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, these are exactly the kind of pointers I was looking for. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Note; progressing along the recommended lines. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brian - thank you for taking the time to look through this. Your suggestions are extremely helpful and much appreciated. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)