Talk:Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck)

Luber

We used Luber for the Dresden Triptych in the section about portable altarpieces, but the source is mostly about this painting - I remember at the time thinking it was a lovely painting. If I remember correctly the small version was meant to be a portable replica to take on pilgrimage. I'm glad you're not shy about starting new articles, because I never get around to it. If you take down the do not edit tag before the end of the weekend I might be able to add some bits if you don't mind having me jump in. And then maybe, if a miracle happens, I'll try to submit for DYK. Will have to find the file first. That might be a challenge. And then read it. Another challenge. Victoria (tk) 20:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

ha. Anyway thanks muchly for the high quality additions today, and for sending the journal articles, the page is taking form now. Its an intersesting subject, and I'm learning a lot about the techniques of art historians as I go through the sources. Of which there are *many*. Ceoil (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Just when you thought you were out, they pull you back in". I suppose we have a collab on our hands here; I'm certainly interested. How are you fixed? Ceoil (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That about sums it up. Yes, I am interested; I seem to have jumped right in last night. Victoria (tk) 13:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

P.s - lots of reading for this one! Victoria (tk) 20:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Image repositery

Detail showing the crucified Christ

DYK

I tried. I really did. But it's a big red mess: [1]. Hopefully someone will fix it; I have to go offline now. Was at least worth a try. Please rewrite the hook if you don't like. And don't laugh too hard!! Victoria (tk) 17:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Structure

I seem to have gone on a huge digression about the Adornes family, mostly because it's fascinating (and mentioned in the sources) but I'm beginning to think this page will pose some challenges with structure. The source I'm currently reading, Luber's "Patronage and Pilgrimage" has quite a lot about the Franciscan tradition of pilgrimage, which I think would be interesting but prob needs its own section. Being long-winded here, but should I just go ahead and write sections, stuff them somewhere, and we can shove around later and snip out what we don't need or don't want? Victoria (tk) 17:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep on going, I'd say; we can rearrange later. I'll be back tomorrow. Meanwhile, is worth watching if you havnt already. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Also, I'm still reading and just found the chapter re the iconography, so need to stop for a bit to read and process. Thanks very much for the link, haven't seen that yet. Looks fascinating. Victoria (tk) 18:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Landscape

I've just restructured the landscape section - quite a lot, [2]. If it's not good, it's okay to roll it back. I was trying to structure from general critical analyses about landscape to more specific descriptions (with analyses woven in) of mountains, rocks, water, plants, etc. Not sure I accomplished what I wanted. But I'll leave the landscape section alone for now. Also, am getting a little antsy and am about to make a push to finish up shoving in the rest of the content I'd sandboxed (yeah, I know, during xmas no less), but I've feel that I've been hogging the page and I should be stepping away. Victoria (tk) 20:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks much better to me. Reading through again....Ceoil (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Good, ok. Antsyness now gone & struck (too much rushing around yesterday). Will be back to address inlines etc … sometime. M xmas to you and yrs. Victoria (tk) 20:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

1998 exhibition

I added mention of that in the lead for the failed DYK attempt but we don't mention it in the article. Should we keep it there and mention somewhere in the article or remove from the lead? I'd be tempted to remove, but it was fairly well covered in the press. Victoria (tk) 02:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

My impression, second and third hand, is that both panels were widely accepted as JvE origionas only after the 1998 exhibition. They might have been before by close specialists, but it did not trickle down into recieved openion until after. The fashion until then was for the phili panel. We need to include the exhib in the lead, but better phrase it; I'll think it through. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, changed my mind in the past few minutes b/c I have Dhanens open in front of me (and I tweaked that section a bit). She only puts them in the "unsure" category, but the research in prep for the exhibition and tech analysis seems to have made the case. Reminder: there's more that needs to be added re the underdrawings in the Turin panel tying it to other works, if not already done. Anyway, I'll leave the lead to you. And then we prob need to tack on a section tying it all up w/ the exhibition. Victoria (tk) 03:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you will find much secondard info on the exhib, considering that openion changed so much afterwards. Any reassments would have been foolish. What we have seems enough. Looking through sources. Ceoil (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've struck that, poorly worded and I'm getting tired. I've stuck it in. I meant it was part of that examination and that if we haven't we should mention. Victoria (tk) 03:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Np. bleary eyed here too. We are getting there, slowly, incoherently. Ceoil (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to break for tonight. I went off to Commons to look at pics. There is a Bellini (I think) w/ the exact same rocks. Will search for it tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats fine, long as you dont hit me as Deor did tonight with a "gotta ya", that stuff is too easy, and frankly the mark of a boring and tedious mind. But anyway, I might go for a nom here in a day or too, if you feel prepared. Ceoil (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to confess I've not yet read top to bottom, so would like to do that first. Will read it in the morning. I don't have anything else to add, so once I've read through am ok to have you nom it. Victoria (tk) 04:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Seraph quote

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Copied from FAC In this depiction he sees "a man like a seraph having six wings, standing over him with hands outstretched and feet joined together, fixed to a cross. Two wings were raised above his head, two were spread out for flight, and two veiled the whole body": again, we need attribution. Is there some reason this needs to be quoted? Many Wikipedians set the bar for what "needs to be quoted" too high, imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC) I quoted it because I'm a pagan and don't always understand Christian symbols, because I like it, and because I was afraid of straying too far to the source. Can be completely rewritten if required. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC) The only requirement is for attribution. I'm smply one of those with a high bar for "needs to be quoted", as quoting draws attention to the quote itself, which I feel is often WP:UNDUE. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Would like to keep it. It's an important concept imo. Basically the entire point of the painting. How often does a six winged seraph christ appear in front of someone? Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC) I disagree about undue but won't argue. I'll remove it and have removed all the quotes in the sections I've written. I've left the ones in the sections Ceoil's written. But want to go on record to say that this is an issue that's inconsistent from reviewer to reviewer and when this FAC is over I might seek clarification in terms of whether we should be quoting or not. I believe, strongly, that best practice is to wrap a phrase or sentence in quotations rather than having to revert to close paraphrasing. That could just be my training though. Victoria (tk) 23:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC) I wasn't arguing it was actually undue in this case, only questioning whether perhaps it was. If you'd prefer to keep it, then keep it, but make sure it's properly attributed (that is a requirement). As I said, it's not something you'll find in the MOS, just my personal preference—that quoting is often done when paraphrasing would make a more fluent reading experience. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC) You wrote you feel it's often undue. These were the most technical and difficult sources I've ever read and the hardest article I've ever worked on. I've just gutted the sections I wrote. I leave it to the art cabal to figure out what to do with it. I haven't got the experience. But when it comes to knowing how to cite sources and how to attribute, I do have experience. I'll be running this by Moonriddengirl when we're done here. In the meantime, I'll leave it. Victoria (tk) 00:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Oh, dear. For the record, I never would have considered opposing over such a thing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Victoria, no sleep should be lost here. Mr Turkey seems to be on our side, and we can figure this out easily. Ceoil (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC) I disagree. I think it's unnecessarily confrontational. FAC shouldn't be an experience where an article, such as this that has an immense of amount of good research and was really difficult to write and frankly is better than a lot of stuff that comes through here, is raked through the coals, just because someone can. Both CT and Johnbod made comments about the unnecessary use of quotations. But then Curly Turkey says it's not worth an oppose. Frankly it's not worth being involved in this process. The point is taken, the quotes removed, and I've removed my name from the nom. There's a reason I don't display stars on my page; they mean nothing except that someone made it through this gauntlet. I've proved time and again that I incapable and I won't try again. Victoria (tk) 02:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Its not like that. I see the quote has been pulled and thats a shame. I remember asking you how if seraph meant he has three pairs of wings, the figure only has two. You expained; the third pair are under his legs. We need to find where that came from. The ref prob got lost in all the pre-FAC shifting about of text, which is fine. Ceoil (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC) It's in the sources and I've read them all! It's taken two months and I had a sandbox filled with notes. I dotted all the i's and crossed the t's - worked portions of the page and know where that material is. If it's to be challenged, then it's to be challenged. Victoria (tk) 02:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Just to clarify: the quote was important because it explains the vision. In every single depiction of the vision, in Giotto, in the mss. illustrations, the seraph-Christ always has three sets of wings and they're always visible. I don't know how to be more clear about this: the quote explains the vision. The painting is about the vision. The six-winged figure appeared to Francis in a vision. The painting is about that. If we can't get it straight, I think the quote is necessary. If we need to know why van Eyck chose to wrap a set of wings around the legs then that would be in Weale or perhaps in Rishel/Snyder. We never explained it and there's precious little description of van Eyck's version of the seraph in the sources. I spent hours and hours looking for it. Victoria (tk) 02:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC) The quote I remove actually says: and two veiled the whole body. But CT and JB think it's not necessary. I do. As someone who's not familiar with why St Francis has stigmata, I think we need to explain and I think we need the quote. I'm a little surprised to see CT bring up the word oppose. Victoria (tk) 03:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Please readd with a cite. The word oppose was meant in a benign manner in the first place, intended as more reassuring than anything. Ceoil (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but wasn't Johnbod disagreeing with me? I thought he was in favour of the quote and was expressing his displeasure at me for questioning it. To clarify, the important point I brought up was the need to attribute the quote, and the comment about the necessity of the quote was merely an aside. Please consider that comment stricken—at no point had I meant to imply it was UNDUE, that was me poorly communicating. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I was disagreeing with you Curly, and thanks for pointing this out. Perhaps I wasn't expressing myself clearly enough. I'm sorry to see this issue get blown up, when it wasn't a biggie for either of us. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It blew up because I'm not happy about removing all the quotes and gutting the article. I'd prefer a FAC to move more slowly and to have a chance to juggle RL w/ WP. Yes, I misunderstood - I thought high bar meant too many quotes. Anyway seraph quote put back, the cite was always there, and either I forgot to attribute or it got lost along the way. I was reacting to this, attributed to CT: The only requirement is for attribution. I'm smply one of those with a high bar for "needs to be quoted", as quoting draws attention to the quote itself, which I feel is often WP:UNDUE, which I don't agree with. Particularly when the topic/subject is difficult or technical and often said better by the expert. PS - please excuse terseness. It's not intentional. Victoria (tk) 12:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont see this as an issue, frankly; I have all the sources (but there are a lot). Confindent I can pull this; its an important point the source is making. Curly thank you very much for the review so far. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Source integrity issues

• Article: The Philadelphia and Turin Saint Francis paintings were both on display, reunited for probably the first time since the 15th century.[11]
• Source: "And they are brought together here for the first time in this century for comparative evaluation."

This appears to be either a case of WP:OR, or source misrepresentation. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well no. Its more of not wanting to use 3 sources per statement, and not wanting to use only variations of the words used in those sources. We have a provedence section after all, and its not like there was mesueum style van eyck retrospectives in the 18th and 19th centures, years and years before the still contested attribution. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Article: Francis has individualized features,[11]
• Source: I've read the source article three times, but I cannot find anything that would support this claim. Maybe I missed it, or maybe this failed verification. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Article says "youngish middle age, kneeling in a rocky landscape" to which you so voilently disputed. Note the effect of c/ing here. Also it says "impassive, hard to read", also disputed by you. Plus rocks; "I had thought that was OR! I see the word rocks but the ONE source I checked did not explicidly mention!" Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Article: The head and face are minutely detailed. Francis is in his mid-thirties, wears stubble and has a somewhat jowly face and receding hairline. He is presented as a highly intelligent but perhaps detached and impassive individual.[11]
• Source: "Both depict the 12th-century Italian saint as a man in youngish middle age, kneeling in a rocky landscape. His face, which has the closely observed look of a portrait, is impassive, hard to read; his hands and feet are pierced with bleeding puncture wounds."

Covers claims above. Grouping of refs is not ideal, but an indicator that stated claims are sourced from the litrature. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in the source material that supports, "wears stubble and has a somewhat jowly face and receding hairline" or "He is presented as a highly intelligent". So this looks like more WP:OR or source misrepresentation. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Article: He is dressed in sombre colours and rendered in a more compact manner than Francis; crouched as if sunk into the pictorial space in the far right of the panel. His form is highly geometric and voluminous. His cord belt curves down to end next to that of Francis, symbolising the continuity between the Order's founder and his successors. Leo's posture seems to indicate mourning, although he appears to be resting or asleep.[11]
• Source: "A cowled monk, known in Franciscan legend as Brother Leo, sits on the ground nearby, fast asleep. "

This one is a bit baffling and distressing, as none of this is supported by the source material. Hopefully a cite has been misplaced here, and this isn't intentional WP:OR passed off as verifiable to the source, but as far as I can tell, the only thing the source material says about Leo is what I've provided above. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Article: Nature is a key aspect in van Eyck's non-portrait works, a reminder of both divine symbols and concrete, earthly fact.[11]
• Source: "And as always in this artist's work, nature is present, both as a symbol and as a concrete fact."

This one's kind of a mix of OR and close paraphrasing, as "And as always in this artist's work, nature is present," does not = "Nature is a key aspect in van Eyck's non-portrait works", and "both as a symbol and as a concrete fact" is pretty close to "a reminder of both divine symbols and concrete, earthly fact". Rationalobserver (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Article: The browns of the rocks and trees echo those of the robes of the saints. The broad sweep of the mountains and city isolates the figures against the grandeur of nature and bustling human life.[11]
• Source: ???

The source does not contain the words, mountain, brown, tree, human, or city in a description of this work. So in addition to being rather unencyclopedic in tone, I cannot find anything in the source material that supports these sentences, which seem to fail verification. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

These are all from one source, which is cited to 9 times, 6 of which fail verification for a 33% success rate. Was this spot-checked before passing, or is Victoria exempt from that? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, Laser brain, Graham Beards, and Nikkimaria I wanted you to see how well Victoria represents sources in "her" FACs. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This is in fact User:Ceoil's FAC. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria was a co-nom though. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If this is personal (as that last comment suggests) can we please keep it to someone's talk page? This is headscratch-inducing for those of us who've got this page watchlisted. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't you see any of these as problematic? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

They may be, but my concern is whether this is being carried out in good faith. The way it's presented gives me the impression that the motivation is not to improve the article, which is what the talk page is for. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod is right, in that this was my nom, and these points relate to me. If anything, its wide reading and distliining down sources. But, the highlighted instances are mosly of literal description of the painting, which is *right there* in the lead image; not like the specific claims relate to something not *right there* for people with eyes to see. For eg, "mountain, brown, tree, human, or city". Look at the picture; there is a mountain, brown paint, a few trees trees, two humans and a backgroud city. The sources in general are used for multiple consecutive sentences, but not all factoids in those sentances; ie that the sun apperas as generally yellow to humans I dont normally to cite; but if germain, I include. Ditto 'sombre colours'. "highly intelligent but perhaps detached and impassive"; this is certainly subjectived and is sourced but probably in a later ref, might have been shifted about during the extensive copyediting. One thing; van Eyck is very difficult to write about, and each factiod is hard won, and beyond the cosmetic details of the paintings, tends to be heavily academic; I learn as I go along through them. Either way, I'm happy to work on fixing these instances, loking for other probs, though not for a while; am about to go for a bite. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, are you admitting that the description of the painting is actually your own? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No; re-read the description section, re-read what I said. You reply tells me you are *wilfully* leaping to conclusions, and this is personal, though its seems like you landed on the wrong target. But what the hell, eh? Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

But, the highlighted instances are mosly of literal description of the painting, which is *right there* in the lead image; not like the specific claims relate to something not *right there* for people with eyes to see. For eg, "mountain, brown, tree, human, or city". Look at the picture; there is a mountain, brown paint, a few trees trees, two humans and a backgroud city. That sounds like you think you can look at the picture and describe it without drawing your prose from reliable sources. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

When its of the "mountain, brown, tree, human, or city" nture, yes. Nice try though, selective quoting (diff generation for later no doubt), in red text. Lovely. Then I dont know what to say to you. Are you always this charming and collebrative. Sigh. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't look at the painting and describe it with your own words then stick a cite behind it so it looks like it's sourced. That's textbook WP:OR. This will be my last post here; I'm un-watching this page, so do whatever you want. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No it is not. You'r excitable misunderstandings and gotcha simplifications will be sady missed. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In the case of fiction, it's accepted to have plot summaries based on the work itself without relying on third-party sources to describe it, as long as it contains no analysis (which would be OR). Such provisions perhaps apply here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and once you stray into analysis or the subjective in these matters, its certainly OR. Rationalobserver's "analysis" was cherry picking, and exhaused the few, benign instances. It was the result of well, grudge, but also (a) a misunderstanding that "mountain, brown, tree, human, or city" etc is probably too obv to mention in the first place, but hardly OR; (b) misunderstanding that synthesis of sources in complex articles is probably invetable, in terms of 18th c retrospectives for eg, but citing every word is worse, and might lead to slavish word by word adeheriance to sources, ie close pharaphrasing. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141227222256/http://www.galleriasabauda.beniculturali.it/index.php/qr/145-janvaneyck to http://www.galleriasabauda.beniculturali.it/index.php/qr/145-janvaneyck

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Religious legend presented as encyclopaedic fact

"The paintings show a famous incident from the life of Saint Francis of Assisi, who is shown kneeling by a rock as he receives the stigmata of the crucified Christ on the palms of his hands and soles of his feet." To state that is to present legend as fact. It might be fact that he had marks (I have downgraded by description from myth to legend), by to state as fact that those marks are "the stigmata of the crucified Christ" is to abandon an NPOV position about the historically unverified story about Jesus. To state as though it were verifiable fact that this is an incident on the occasion of which he received those marks, and therefore that at least some of the attendant details of the picture pertained at the time. That is plainly unknowable. I would suggest that it is valid to say "The paintings show Saint Francis of Assisi kneeling by a rock as he receives the stigmata of the crucified Christ on the palms of his hands and soles of his feet" (an edit I made that has been reverted), because that only claims to describe an image. But as soon as you label it as an incident, you are crediting it as an historical event. And no-one can claim verification of that. Kevin McE (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

All we've done is summarize in the lead the information in the body of the text, attributing the event to the original chronicler. What the following paragraph explains is basically summarized in the lead in a single sentence:

St Francis lived austerely, in imitation of Christ. He embraced the natural world, and took vows of poverty, charity and chastity. In 1224 at La Verna, he experienced the mystical vision which van Eyck portrays. Thomas of Celano, author of Francis's hagiography, describes the vision and stigmatization: "Francis had a vision in which he saw a man like a seraph: he had six wings and was standing above him with his hands outstretched and his feet bound together, and was fixed to a cross. Two wings were lifted above his head, and two were spread ready for flight, and two covered his whole body. When Francis saw this he was utterly amazed. He could not fathom what this vision might mean." As he meditated, "marks of nails began to appear on his hands and feet ... His hands and feet seemed to be pierced by nails appearing on the inside of his hands and the upper side of his feet ... His right side was scarred as if it had been pierced by a spear, and it often seeped blood." To the medieval observer, the appearance of the stigmata signifies Francis's complete absorption in the vision of the seraph.

If you feel strongly about it, it's fine to place the same citation in the lead to solve the issue. Victoria (tk) 22:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

But all of that is describing a vision: a subjective phenomenon. And as such it is fine. Describing it as an incident is to imbue it with objective reality, which we cannot do. Kevin McE (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said when reverting you "that he had the marks is much too well-attested to be called a "myth" - there certainly was an "incident" of some sort". Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I really do not believe that that is verifiable fact, although I respect that some believe it. But an encyclopaedia cannot ask its readers to assume that hagiographical stories are subjective incidents, or that an image based on such stories "show an incident"

What is actually wrong in my proposal? For those who choose to believe, it denies nothing, but it does not ask the reader to accept anything as true other than that it is a picture. Kevin McE (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll ask again, as nobody has answered in 5 days: What is actually wrong in my proposal ("The paintings show Saint Francis of Assisi kneeling by a rock as he receives the stigmata of the crucified Christ on the palms of his hands and soles of his feet")? For those who choose to believe, it denies nothing, but it does not ask the reader to accept anything as true other than that it is a picture. Kevin McE (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

it’s not that it happened to him every so often, so am in favor of keeping the word ‘incident’. I do get the point you are trying to articulate, but don’t think this is a very good target or solution. Ceoil (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Focus of painting

Who says the "panoramic landscape that seems to relegate the figures to secondary importance"? I think it's nonsense. The large, prominent figures dominate the painting. This statement absolutely requires at least an attribution and maybe a change. Zaslav (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zaslav. I think this statement should be taken in the context of landscape painting as it was in the early 15th century, where very rarely were backgrounds so richly detailed, and given almost equal billing to the saints. But yes, it does need either att. or rewording. Hold on. Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Removed for now. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

So, no infobox?

Why not? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi AB. I'm more pro than against infoboxes on painting articles these days, but in this instance we have two paintings, and the authorship (lead says "usually attributed") and sequence has been and is still doubted by some....so its all a bit complicated. Mainly though, it we were to add an infobox, that would mean a double image (otherwise would be OR), and thus each would be very small, where as we want the reader to clearly see both the similarities and differences between the paintings as a whole, clearly from the start. Hope that makes sense. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead image size

I propose reducing the lead image size. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size says, "Stand-alone lead images should also be no wider than upright=1.35." In this case, I under "stand-alone" to mean outside an infobox. IMO, the current lead image is way too large. Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sort of. Have resized now so that both images are the same size. Reluctantly mind you, as the previous sizing was to indicate the relative differences between the two panels. Perhaps I went too much, during the FAC, on making the first one bigger, than the second one smaller. Thinking..... Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I propose leaving the first img as it is now, at 23.38pm and reducing the second so they scale. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

ps, I get the impression that you are more technically competent than me, so if you want to have a go at sizing the 2nd pic, that would be great. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

pps; this should be kept in mind[3]. So dunno, discussion welcome. Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I've upped it a bit. Victoria (tk) 19:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)