The Entombment (Bouts) edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would appreciate feedback and advice. The article is short but I hope covers the range of scholarship. Ceoil (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Doing... I look forward to reviewing this Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: I enjoy paintings articles, and always like to review them when I can find time.
- Lead
- "The smaller works would have been paired in a format similar to Bouts' 1464–67 Altar of Holy Sacrament". Could there be a directive to this image, to assist understanding of this sentence?
- "It was unrecorded until a mid-19th century Milan inventory..." might read better as "It was first recorded in a mid-19th century Milan inventory..."
- "...without damaging the canvas..." Previously it was state that the painting was on linen. Is this one and the same thing?
- The location of the prominent Lamentation of Christ image, in a section describing another painting, is distracting. I kept having to stop myself checking the text against this image.
Images regiged. :Done Ceoil (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- According to the Gospel accounts, Golgotha was the place of Christ's crucifixion, not the site of his tomb.
- It's not clear why a similarity to Simon the Pharisee in another painting identifies Nicodemus in this one. Is it a question of dress, or of some other distinguishing Pharisaic feature?
- "a while headdress" → "a white headdress"
- "Joseph of Arimathea ... brought Christ's body from Pontius Pilate to Golgotha" - see earlier point.
- Repetition of content: the last sentence of this section repeats the second sentence.
- Condition
- What does "Z-spun" mean?
- "The Entombment is one of the best preserved and few surviving examples of the glue-size technique..." reads awkwardly. It's hard to rephrase without undue repetition, but I suggest: "Among the few surviving examples of the glue-size technique, The Entombment is one of the best preserved..." etc
- As a matter of interest, but how do we know what the original colours were?
- "The canvas has deteriorated substantially and the colours have greatly changed and faded over time,[10] but it is still one of best conserved works of its type." Redundant sentence, as these points have already been made.
- "X-ray shows" probably better as "X-rays show"
- "Infra-red photography shows that..." Probably, "confirms that..." would be better, in view of the X-ray evidence.
- Citation 14 is an unreferenced comment, as is 20
- The final sentence of the section is uncited.
- Polyptych
- The section title does not occur in the section prose. Some readers may be unfamiliar with the term.
- "...two works half its length and width positioned at either side..." "At either side" should read "on each side", since "either" is ambiguous ("one or the other")
- The second and third paragraphs of this section appear to be in the wrong order. We shouldn't be reading about the 1998 reconstruction before we know what the elements were. I suggest you reverse them (a little tweaking of prose may be necessary for continuity).
- Provenance and attribution
- "The dating of works established as his can be broadly construed by their skill." Something wrong here; dates are not "construed", and what does "their skill" refer to? I assumed the sentence to mean that the dates of Bouts's known works are generally determined by the level of skill displayed in them (the more skill, the later date).
- ...but, reading on: "Because the presentation of perspective in The Entombment is clumsy in areas, it can be assumed to have been completed after 1464". So clumsiness (i.e. lack of skill) indicates a late work? I am afraid that this dating business needs some further clarification.
- The words "along with the fact that" are unnecessary verbosity and should be removed.
- "in the Bout's..." Stray apostrophe
- The sentence beginning "The Entombment was first recorded..." spins on endlessly and needs some serious subdivision.
- The sum "£120 14s" needs explanation, as most readers won't understand the obsolete form. I'm not talking about present values, it's explaining what "14s" means. One simple solution would be to say "just over £120". Also, I'm not sure about "England's collection" at the end. Maybe "British collections"?
No need to place quotes round "originally in the possession of the Foscari family" as this is commonplace phrasing. If you're concerned about a copyvio, make it "originally owned by..."
- "The Foscari's were..." another stray apostrophe
- New paragraphs should not begin with pronound ("It was transported...")
- Last sentence: I'm not sure about "unsophisticated" as a description; perhaps to vague. Also, another inappropriate "while".
That's about it. A charming article, needs a little polishing. I've done a few minor edits myself, for noncontroversial corrections. As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, please feel free to ping my talkpage if you want to discuss any of my comments, or if you would like me to take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: The toolbox in the top right (dablinks etc) appears to refer to the Daniel Radcliffe article (!) It may be a glitch in my system, but please check it out. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- This fault now corrected. Check out the dablinks. Brianboulton (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Cmt: Working through, but I need to track down difficult to get sources to meet Brian's substantial cmts. In other words, not ignoring, just mired for the moment, but appreciative. I dont mind if the review is archived; have the view I was looking for. Ceoil (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think all the problems you found have been adressed. There has been a broad sweep of the article in the last few days, I hope to your satisifaction. Best. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)