Talk:Dürer's Rhinoceros

Some sources

this pdf might have something good. I've seen multiple sources including this one stressing the importance of Conrad_Gesner's republishing-slash-plagiarism of the woodcut, by way of it becoming so well known. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this too fringe? Glynis Ridley, in Clara's Grand Tour, theorizes that the woodcut is an accurate depiction -- of the Rhino in modified horse armour! She thinks the beast was suited up as part of the presentation to the Pope, and that Dürer actually got a look at it.

Now I think this sounds fishy -- surely the inscription would mention a detail like that? -- but that's just me. Opinions on whether this merits mention? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Clara's Grand Tour?! I was half-joking on Geogre's talk page about Clara the rhinoceros... And the story of the man who mistook a baboon for a hyena is a classic.

Is the hypothesis that Dürer saw the armoured-up rhino in Lisbon? When? I think the generally-accepted chronology has Dürer making the woodcut from the letter sent to Nuremburg, well before the rhino went to Rome. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It all seemed very vague about the chronology -- either in Lisbon, or possibly at some stop along the way from there to sinking off Italy. It's available in google books, but that part at least is written in a rather expansive not-getting-to-the-point style and it's hard to see more than a few consecutive pages in google books, by design. (Any yeah, it's a whole book about Clara the Rhino's tour of Europe. Go figure.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to add this, maybe someone else could.

Another reference for this would be David Quamman's book, "The Boilerplate Rhino: Nature in the Eye of the Beholder", which is a collection of his essays from Outside Magazine. The book took its name from the original essay, which was simply called "The Boilerplate Rhino". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.43.196 (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks. The key reference (currently not consulted) would seem to be T. H. Clarke, The Rhinoceros from Durer to Stubbs, 1515–1799, Sotheby’s Publications, London, 1986. (219 pages on copies of Dürer's rhinoceros). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And ISBN for that title is ISBN 0856673269. Circeus 14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Masterpieces of the British Museum

The print of the Durer Rhinoceros was one of the six 'masterpieces' featured in this documentary series which was shown on BBC4 recently. Unfortunately, as the series has now finished, I can't find any reference to it on the BBC website. The only proof I've been able to find are the DVD's on sale at the British Museum shop (see http://www.britishmuseum.co.uk/Product.aspx?ID=1146 for these). That it was considered significant enough to be featured seemed like it might be worth mentioning in the article, even if only as a trivia point, but I can't work out how best to do so. Perhaps someone else might have a better idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverthorn (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't find any references to the BBC program, but there is a British Museum booklet "Master Prints Close-Up" which features Janssen's print. I'll add it to the article as a citation. JVollenhoven 23:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Book looks god and reasonably priced. I'll get a copy and write up the some 45 featured prints for Wikipedia. Others welcome to join me! JVollenhoven 00:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

recent copy-edit

I hesitate to edit an article as skilfully written as this, but I have just a few queries.

• "Despite its inaccuracies, Dürer's woodcut became very popular and was copied many times over in the following two centuries."

The "inaccuracies" kind of hits you—just a brief explanation of what it means, so it might be clearer and less surprising. Perhaps: "Although Dürer's woodcut contained several anatomical inaccuracies, it became popular throughout Europe ...".

And can "over" be removed without changing the sense? BTW, I've guessed this suggested phrase, since I haven't yet read the rest of the article. I will, soon. Tony 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Just about the get in the car :) Yes, anatomical inaccuracies is perfect, and throughout Europe is also fine, although there are examples in areas such as South America and the Far East with a strong European influence; and it should be "over" or "in" (but not both!) - it should probably be "in the following three centuries" as it was not supplanted until the late-1700s. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• "it had become something of a mythical beast for bestiaries"—Is it possible to pipe the first link to avoid the repetition of "beast/bestiaries"? Maybe not, but I thought of "mythical creature". A few edits I've made need to be OKed, since I'm unfamiliar with the topic. Tony 16:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• "A similar rhinoceros was placed at the base of a 70-foot (21 m) high obelisk designed by Jean Goujon and erected in front of the Church of the Sepulcre in the rue Saint-Denis in Paris in 1549 to welcome the arrival of the new King of France, Henri II. Another decorates ...". It wasn't an actual rhinoceros, but an ?image, ?woodcut, ?depiction of—I'm unsure of the right word. This word also needs to be inserted before "decorates".

Sounds like it's a relief sculpture. Although I like the sentence as it is, perhaps changing it to something like the following will be more to your taste: "Dürer's image also appeared, translated into relief form, on the bronze west doors of Pisa cathedral" (Shame about the red link). Have just corrected the spelling of Sepulchre. [talk to the] HAM 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• A reference in the "Notwithstanding" paragraph: "The popularity of Dürer image was probably enhanced by the presence of an Indian Rhinoceros in Madrid for eight years, from 1579 to 1587 (although a few examples of a print created by Philippe Galle in Antwerp in 1586, and derivative works, have survived), and by the exhibiting of a live rhinoceros in London a century later, from 1684–86, and of a second individual after 1739. I've reworded some of this to avoid the negatives, but I'm still unsure of the status of "although": is it detracting from or adding to the effects of the eight-year stay in Madrid?

• The only other thing is that, IMV, it's a little overlinked, which detracts from the visual appearance and may dilute the prominence of the (many) high-value links. I'd be inclined not to link major cities, such as "Paris" and "London" and countries. I've removed a few dictionary-type links, such as "skin", and wonder about "reflection" etc.

I look forward to the FAC nomination of this article.

Thanks all.

• Having re-read, I probably did mean "copied many time over in..." but I think it is clearer now;
• I have separated the two "beast"s;
• Pisa's example is a relief;
• the "notwithstanding" paragraph is saying that you would expect the exhibition of three further living examples to make people realise that Dürer's woodcut was not accurate, but for some reason they did not (probably because they were only seen by a limited number of people, Dürer's woodcut was well-established in the popular imagination, and no popular images were produced from the new animals).

Thanks again. I'll take it to FAC shortly. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Dalí's Rhinoceros

Dalí's Rhinoceros

Looking through the Salvador Dalí article now on WP:FAC, I recognized a familiar beast. up+land 16:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that is lovely. Rinoceronte vestido con puntillas - presumably puntillas are sea urchins? I would be interested to know more about Dalí's film La aventura prodigiosa de la encajera y el rinoceronte, but I'm not sure if/how to squeeze it or the sculpture in here... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I was coming here to point out the same image :) I don't speak any Spanish, but the title is apparently given in English as "Rhinoceros dressed in lace." (?)

Would the image be a good replacement for the one of the porcelain rhinoceros? They seem to cover the same ground -- a modern rhinoceros clearly modelled on Durer's -- but it's from a famous artist, the color makes it easier to see the Dürer-esque skin texture, and the image reads better at thumbnail size than the other one. Or maybe even just add it to the last paragraph. It seems like it could be adequately explained with a caption, without needing to work anything into the text. —Celithemis 01:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add some text about Dalí's rhinoceros to the article with the image, but please don't replace the image of the modern porcelain rhino - the text refers to porcelain representations, and here is one (the article is really talking about plates bearing images, but there were also clocks and other decorative objects in the form of a Dürer's Rhinoceros). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Links to other misdrawn creatures?

Seeing the Rino reminds me of Samuel Griswold Goodrich's Iguanadon, as seen here [1]. Should they be linked? Are there similar drawings that could be linked together as well? -Kevingarcia 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - it is an interesting parrallel. Dürer had to reconstruct a rhinoceros from a written description and a drawing (now lost); Goodrich had to reconstruct a dinosaur from a disarticulated skeleton, based on the opinions of leading palaeontologists. However, I am not sure how much it adds to this article. Can you provide any references which discuss the similarities? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no connection other than my own observations. Still, seems someone interested in one would find the other intriguing. - Kevingarcia 08:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

i'm not ammused

This is my first time on this site and I clicked on this article expecting an article about a rhinoceros, but I see an obscene picture with numerous vulgar words in the caption beneath it. You call youselves encyclopedians? I thought this was a real legitimate site and was thinking of becoming an editor myself, but this just shows you're a bunch of immature jerks possing as an encyclopedia. Is this all some sort of sick practical joke?! Well, you just lost a customer. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.145.107 (talk)

The vandalism lasted less than 1 minute and as you can see the article is quickly put back to normal. Wikipedians do their best to keep vandalism off and it is too bad that you managed to stumble on vandalism. Gdo01 03:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

why isnt this page protected?

since its on the homepage i thought this article would be protected. i have removed the inappropriate picture, as it was totally unrelated.

How is the picture totally unrelated? This article is about the "woodcut engraved by Albrecht Dürer in 1515" and the picture was of a woodcut. Gdo01 03:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

the picture was changed with a picture of a flaccid and an erect penis with words cunt nigger and such. i thought it would be best to remove it, as it offended some people (look above).the picture was named durers woodcut, but changed with the aforementioned.

Can anyone else see this? The picture looks fine to me; I see a woodcut of the rhino not a flaccid penis. I'll try cleaning my cache. Gdo01 03:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what revision you are seeing but this[2] clearly shows that you removed the legitimate picture not the vandal picture. Gdo01 03:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some twit has been dicking around with one or more of the image files. -- Hoary 03:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it usual to refer to User:Raul654/protection in this connection?

Don't the images get protected in advance? I am rather upset that two anons have now complained about obscene vandalism to this article (although, given the "horn" connection, recognised by Dalí amongst many others, perhaps not too surprising). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There still seems to be a problem here. For the last 30 minutes or so, the text "Wikipedia lies. This article has been closed because of gayness. Wikipedia lies. This article has been closed" appears several hundred times. I went to edit it out, but could not find the offending text. I have emptied by cache, so the problem seems to be at the Wikipedia end. Too bad. Can someone else fix this? Evidently the article needs to be secured.

Gosh no. Featured articles must be available for editing by all because that's the way to encourage new people to edit, and WP needs more editors. The fact that edits to a featured article by newbies who can't wait a day for it to be unfeatured have a one in fifty chance of being improvements and -- the rates of exhibitionism, stupidity, petty-mindedness, drunkenness, sociopathy, etc. among the computer-using public being what they are -- an eight in ten chance of being degradations is by the way. These people must be allowed to interrupt Wikipedia to make a point; the experience may encourage them to make valuable contributions later to articles on the important stuff: "digimon", pop stars, "Big Brother" contestants. I mean, who cares about this old dude Dürer anyway? He's dead and his picture's all wrong. (Still, his heavy metal umlaut is kind of cool.) -- Hoary 14:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Actually, with the number of eyes on it, vandalism to the Main Page featured article tends to be reverted within minutes, and in any event you can always revert to the article before the day starts. As it happens, there have been a few relatively minor improvements so far today (someone added the cite templates, another corrected the category sorting, I have dealt with a few requests for citations and corrected the odd word here or there which i would not otherwise have noticed). I hope some of the schoolboys and drive-by vandals will indeed come back and do something more productive. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is one who won't come back for at least 23 hours 50 minutes. Yes, I booted him off without bothering with the usual rigmarole of talk about the "sandbox", white crosses on red, white hands on red, etc. He isn't worth even the keystrokes I've already expended on him. (Does this make me a rouge sysop?) -- Hoary 15:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I had to revert it. Someone vandalised it really badly. It should be protected. -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.8.227 (talk)

Modern day uses

Since this article is a featured article I will not just edit it, but consult my fellow Wikians. The image of Dürer's Rhinoceros was used as the cover of A Sociology of monsters; Essays on Power, Technology and Domination edited by John Law. Is this fact worth being mentioned here? Mach10 09:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea (and I was not aware of that instance) but I am not convinced that this article needs a section listing all of the times when the image has been used as a book cover, etc. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Gosh

• http://www.artebr.com/lambelambe/historia.html - ! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That page (translation) has three versions of the image, a 3rd edition (like our top image, with 6 lines of text), a 1st edition (like the one in Australia, with 5 lines of text) and the 17th century chiaroscuro version. It has interesting comments on Francisco Pereira Coutinho, call "the Rusticão", captain of the Nossa Senhora da Ajuda and later "captain of Bahia", and on the letter sent to Nuremberg. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Quammen - Is this Inaccurate?

The article is very heavy on the inaccuracy of the print compared with the supposed original animal. There is reference in Discussion below to David Quammen's article "The Boilerplate Rhino: Nature in the Eye of the Beholder" in his book of the same name (2000). I don't have it with me but I recall that he made a good case that the print was actually an accurate representation of a rare Indonesian [?] species of rhinoceros. Should there be some reference to this ? Has it been peer reviewed out ? I'm not qualified to judge. Is there anyone who is ? GBH 88.106.235.185 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the query. I am afraid that I have not been able to locate a copy of the article. Howeer, it seems unlikely to me that an Sultan on the west coast of India would have a Javan Rhinoceros rather than an Indian Rhinoceros. In any event, neither has the "Dürer" horn, and neither has "armour" like Dürer depicts (although this page refers to an "armour-plated appearance caused by the deep folds of hairless skin", and the appearance of the ribs in the top image there is interesting). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reguardless of the species, this is actually an incredibly accurate rendition for something the artist had never seen. How common was it for an artist of the period to draw a creature they'd never seen? Was it as accurate as this frequently? (Disclaimer: I know nothing of art.) -Toptomcat 19:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, very accurate, for an artist who never saw the subject; but then not totally accurate in a number of respects compared to the true appearance of the animal. And the woodcut actually claims to be an truly accurate representation - see the quoted text - so it needs to be said that it is not; also that Burkmair's is more accurate, if less accomplished.

Artists draw things that don't exist, or they have not seen, all the time, some better and some worse. Many "exotic" animals, like rhinos and giraffes, appeared in bestiaries, for example, without the artist ever seeing them (alongside unicorns and hippogriffs and so on). -- ALoan (Talk) 19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now found a copy of Quammen's book (the other parts of the book are interesting too, by the way, all articles originally published in his 15-year stint writing a monthly column for Outside (magazine)). Anyway, he refers to the Indian Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) not the Javan Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros sondaicus), and says that the image is more accurate that you would think if you only looked at one of the African species (the White Rhinoceros or Black Rhinoceros, neither of which has the same skin folds). His conclusion is that the image is not that bad, but the words are worse, and that contradicts his innate bias in favour of the written word and prejudice against mass-market images. "Words can lie too." he writes, ironically. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

German Translation

I feel that the german translation provided is not entirely accurate. Here is something which I believe better represents the caption:

On the first of May in the year 1513 AD, the powerful King of Portugal, Manuel of Lisbon, brought such a living animal from India. They call it rhinoceros. It is represented in all its form here. It is the colour of a speckled turtle, and is almost entirely covered with thick scales. It is the size of an elephant but has shorter legs and is almost invulnerable. It has a strong pointed horn on the tip of its nose, which it begins to whet when it is near stones. This animal is the mortal enemy of the elephant. The elephant is deathly afraid of it, because when they meet, this animal charges with its head between its front legs, it rips the elephants stomach open and guts it, against which the elephant is unable to defend himself. The animal is so well armed that the elephant can do nothing to him. It is said that the rhinoceros is fast, jolly and cunning.

And the word Schildkrot in the text is most certainly translated as turtle rather than toad. Krot on its own would be toad, while the added Schild specifies a shielded toad, or a turtle.Philfo 16:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. As was already noted, some sources did say "tortoise" but my vestigial schoolboy German was not up to the task of discerning between the two. I have taken in some other suggestions, although I suppose the translation does not need to be word for word. Is that a bit better? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Great edits! Word for word would be unnecessary, but the new version is much closer to representing the original meaning which I believe is a worthwile change. Philfo 16:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, thank you for providing another translation. Now, if only people would stop vandalising the page... -- ALoan (Talk) 17:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Help needed with a translation

Hi, I am translating this lovely article to Spanish (almost finished), but I found a problem with a link. When the article refers to Villefranche... which Villefranche is supposed to link? In this wikipedia Villefranche is a dissambiguation page. I would like to specify a little more to make the link more useful. Congratulations to the authors.Chabacano 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I just found it in the French version. It is Villefranche-sur-Mer Chabacano 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

French, Spanish, German

File:Dali Rhinocéros Cosmique.jpg

The other language versions of this page mention some snippets that are not mentioned here, and have a few extra images. I wonder whether it is worth gilding this lily a bit more? Anyway, I had to put this other Dalí sculpture somewhere :) "not entirely anatomically accurate" in spades! -- ALoan (Talk) 15:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Meissen and obelisk

The creator of the Meissen rhinoceros is apparently not sufficient important to be mentioned. It seems to have been sculpted by Johann Gottlieb Kirchner in 1730 or 1731.[3] [4] (Some sources call him Johann Jakob Kirchner, or attribute it to his successor Johann Joachim Kaendler instead.)

And here is an image of the Paris obelisk by Jean Goujon in 1549, if someone feels it is worthy. Perhaps the inspiration for Bernini's Pulcino della Minerva in front of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, or perhaps they both derive from Hypnerotomachia Poliphili.

!! 13:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This (and the Dali above) could go in the main article. But links in captions are to be avoided - they would be fine in footnotes to the main text, or even the caption, although they may be disapproved of there - I'm not sure is the MOS covers this. Johnbod 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

First known image?

The woodcut shown can't possibly be the first known image of a rhinoceros, as there is prehistoric cave art of the creature. I've changed the wording to refer to the first known print instead, but expert review would still be appreciated. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not the first, but probably the most iconic image for centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.114.207 (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

wow

this article is a "Featured article" in 9 different languages can someone make it featured in the all 15 languages? Yiftach T (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Indian rhinoceros

This photo here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Panzernashorn2004.jpg looks even more like the woodcut that the one currently shown. Shall we use it instead? (It's not my phto, but when I saw it in the main rhinoceros article, my first thought was "Wow - that looks just like that old woodcut!" Wardog (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Spot the Rhino?

Joseph Presents his Father and Brothers to the Pharaoh

What would that creature be in the right background of Joseph Presents his Father and Brothers to the Pharaoh by Francesco Granacci (c. 1515) in the Uffizi? Can anyone find a reference? Humphrey Jungle (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! I did find a recent 2015 blog on the subject, but not sufficiently RS to mention unfortunately. There's a close-up and some interesting OR. JVollenhoven 00:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

British Museum linkback

I just thought I'd drop a line here to mention that the British Museum is now linking out to this article from their article about the same subject with the line See also the feature quality article about Albrecht Dürer's Rhinoceros in Wikipedia. Neat! Witty Lama 23:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's astonishing and an enormous complement to all those who have contributed to this article. Does this count for an ITN mention (is there another forum for significant back-links?) or at least a note in the talk header? Fæ (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Location

I just visited the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Durer's piece was there. Unless there is more than one copy, should the location be changed to that? I do not have a source, so somebody should look for one. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

After a quick search, I found this source: The Rhinoceros, 1515 This is from the museum's website and should be reliable. Piguy101 (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a print. There are dozens, if not hundreds of copies. The BM is only mentioned because it has the preparatory drawing. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Piguy101 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Repetition?

The second chunk of text in this article is exactly the same as a large chunk of the text under the heading 'Durer's woodcut'. Seems like the bit in the intro would do better just under the woodcut heading, removed entirely from the intro or summarised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.73.39 (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The scan

I've converted the scan to high-contrast greyscale, which is only meet for a form of line art, but the people at the TeaHouse said I should have consulted the experienced editors watching this article before doing so. This is a heads-up.Ant 222 (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Whereas the paper colour was considered essential to the print, the grayscale scan was replaced with a colour one with a better resolution, normalised dynamic range, and white balance set by the empty area above the sheet. Whoever can view the originals of Durer's woodcuts, please let me know if the adjustments be justified.Ant 222 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the new one is slightly better, mainly because stronger. Individual copies will vary a lot. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have linked an animated .gif that conveniently shows the corrections in a small fragment at 1:1 scale.Ant 222 (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable sourcing

I removed this source from the article, since it's clearly not a reliable one. I mean. It's a forum post from a random person on the Internet, it shouldn't be anywhere near Wikipedia, let alone a FA.

Some of the other sources should probably be checked as well, for instance look at this one. It's a blog of a study group from a university in Brazil, named Group of History and Theory of Science. Uh, okay? Then you check out its members, and find out they are mostly professors of Physics and Biology... so I doubt they could be considered authorities in Art somehow. Then you have this one which is also a blog, but at least its people seem to be a little bit more in the Art scene. I don't know if it can be considered a quality source for FA purposes, though. Just sharing some thoughts here, hoping to hear from the community. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• I found another blog post on the references. I doubt this qualifies as a reliable source. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

FAR notice

I just stumbled upon on this article, it still has plenty of unreliable sources, MOS issue/image sandwiching and plenty are unsourced. Some of the sources are dead and contains Youtube, files and prose issues. 2001:4455:364:A800:CD09:1137:D247:C321 (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

IP 2001: has listed this article at WP:FARGIVEN; if issues cannot be addressed, the article may be submitted to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

With his first 15 edits! I have mostly sorted out the sandwiching, now ok I think. It's a pity he doesn't list specific issues. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Taking a quick skim of this article, I see that there are still some places that need citations. Are you willing to address these concerns? If you are, I am happy to take a closer look at the article and post additional concerns. If not, this might be nominated at WP:FAR. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No. Have you ever thought of trying to sort out some problems yourself, instead of just piling up things for other people to do? If you do take it to FAR, make sure to give a list of actual specific issues, which no one has yet done. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunate that an IP gives some hard time to some experienced editors, but that's how wikipedia is :) I'll give it a short try to address some issues.

• I saw that some sourcing goes/went to google art project.
• I also noticed that the name of the Rhinoceros (Ulysses, added for now) nor the ca. 5000 copies made from Dürer's woodcut were included. The 5000 copies I have from a minor anonymous source, which seemed to be well informed. So I guess they had to have the info from some other more prominent sources which could be found.
• Paolo Giovo's role in Alessandro de Medici's emblem could also be fleshed out.

While searching for info on the article, I found some rather important sources and infos, but not the citations to source the phrases with a cn tag. I guess the article could be in a bit a better shape and also better expanded as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

These aren't very helpful edits, frankly. "I saw that some sourcing goes/went to google art project" - this just takes texts from the museums, & is perfectly reliable (more so than some sources you've added). I'm highly dubious about "ca. 5000 copies made from Dürer's woodcut" - "from" or "of", which contradicts info in the article. There might have been 5,000 impressions (the correct word) originally, but we don't know. But the survival rate is extremely low - only a single example of Burgkmair's 1515 woodcut copy is known. I think your "minor anonymous source" is less well informed than you think. If you add together all survivals from the many derivative versions by others you might well get to this, but no one is counting. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I am wondering if the British museum references are the highest-quality source that can be used for this article. Are there academic journals that can be used to replace these and if so is WP:LIBRARY the best place to look, or is there another location that would be better for this topic? I am not a subject-matter expert so I am thankful for any guidance on places to look for sources. Z1720 (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Try the internet, JSTOR etc. Bartrum's BM book is now fully online. Actually the article doesn't use the BM much. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I might give his a go re refs - article is in good shape and the outstanding ref requirements are not that taxing given the abundance of sources. Ceoil (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Have started with reffing, hold on Ceoil (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

As update, work continues...Almost there wrt citations at least. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ceoil: is work still ongoing on this, or is it ready for another informal review? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)