Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gothic boxwood miniature/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2018 [1].

Gothic boxwood miniature edit

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Attic Salt

Impossibly small wood-cut miniatures from the 15th and 16th centuries, which have unfortunately been under studied until very recently, partly because they are too small to fully appreciate even with the naked eye. I have watched people come across them in museums, and the usual reaction is jaw drop; it takes a few minutes to realise what you are looking at. User:Attic Salt has been especially helpful with a series of detailed copy edits. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley edit

This is a most interesting article and I don't think I'll be the only reader who comes to the subject with no prior knowledge at all and learns a lot. A few suggestions about the text

  • Engvar
    • It isn't clear which variety of English the article is intended to be in. At first I thought it was in BrE ("categorised") but then ran across AmE ("coloring") and from a quick skim-check I make it AmE 4 (artifacts, coloring, medalist, modeling) and BrE 5 (categorised, categorises, organised, realised, specialised).
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • False titles – fine if in AmE, but not in BrE, where a definite article removes the pain: "to [the] art historian Lynn Jacobs", "to [the] art historian Frits Scholten" etc.
      yes, absolutely - done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation
    • The MoS bids us use straight rather than curly inverted commas (style’s, saints’ soldiers’ etc).
      Ok Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another thing the MoS prescribes is to put the full stop after the quotation marks for a quote that ends a sentence. (I'm forever falling foul of that myself.)
Done. Attic Salt (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • Is "gebedsnoot" definitely German? It looks Dutch to me, and a quick Google rather points in that direction too. (But if it is a German noun it needs a capital G.)
Its definitely Dutch - changed now. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Says "Dutch" now. Attic Salt (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "sixteenth century" – but "16th century" in the previous paragraph.
    • "heaven and hell" – but "Heaven and Hell" with capital letters later in the text.
    • "Due to their rarity" – fine if the article is in AmE, but in BrE "due to" has not yet been generally accepted as a compound preposition, and "owing to" or "because of" is wanted.
    • "relatively understudied" – relative to what? Rather leaves us in the air unless we are told what other studies you're comparing these studies to.
      Clarified in the lead, but could do with expansion in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production
    • I'm not sure why the phrase "evenly soft and tactile surface when polished" is in quotes. Usually if words are in quotes one expects to be told inline whose words they are.
    • "overlaid onto one another" – your meaning is perfectly clear, but looked at logically they can't all be laid on top of one another. "One on top of another" is a bit wordy, but more accurate, I think. You might want to canvass opinion on this: perhaps I'm being too fussy.
      • No agree, and trimmed accordingly. Ceoil (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "larger scale counterparts" – hyphens are not my strongest point, but I think I'd hyphenate this.
      Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "straightedge" – the OED hyphenates this.
      Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "high born" – I'd hyphenate this too, I think.
      Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "first attributed person by the art historian Jaap Leeuwenberg" – we've already been introduced to this expert, so I'd omit "the art historian Jaap" here.
    • "may have lead" – "may have led"
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "some 60 of surviving examples" – I'm wondering where you draw the line for giving numbers as words. We've got as high as sixteen in words earlier.
      Because i was too lazy to look up how to spell sixthy. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Dutch version of his name, Adam Dircksz, is usually used by art historians". – it doesn't bother me, but some people get really exercised about the use of the passive voice, of which there's a fair bit in this article. Here, for instance, you could use the active: "but art historians usually use the Dutch version of his name, Adam Dircksz". (Either way, perhaps "generally use(d)" to avoid the jingle?)
      • have always struggled with this passive voice thing, as I dont know what it means, frankly. Its a term Ive only heard on wiki. Ceoil (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a matter of what you make the subject of the sentence. Active is X does Y. Passive is Y is done by X. "I like you" is active. "You are liked by me" means the same but is passive, and longer winded. Sometimes the passive is useful, as in "all the seats were taken", which would actually be longer winded in the active – "people had taken all the seats". But generally active is shorter and less woolly. Tim riley talk 20:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim, very clear. For obvious reasons English grammar wasn't taught in Irish religious order schools in the 70s, so am at a bit of a disadvantage with this stuff. Will comb through. Ceoil (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last para of section: does ref 35 cover all four preceding sentences?
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Henry V III" – one or the other, I imagine. [Later: the penny's dropped: it's an unwanted space in VIII.]
ok Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iconography
    • "depictions of the Crucifixion" – not capitalised earlier.
  • Formats
    • "similar coloring, however" – stronger stop than a comma wanted here.
    • "memento mori's" – the authorities think the plural of memento mori is memento mori, and given its Latin origin that's no doubt true, but I don't see why you shouldn't make it an English plural – but not, please, with an inverted comma.
  • Prayer beads
    • "turned by a bow" – this caught me on the back foot: a bow? Is there a useful link you could add?
      Have rephrased this. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a sphere, which they then cut in half, hollowed out and attached a fastening hinge" – there's a preposition missing here, as you can see if you mentally omit the words in brackets: "a sphere, which they then [cut in half, hollowed out and] attached a fastening hinge".
      Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "apotropaic" – I know the MoS discourages blue links from within quotes, but I think you might make an exception here. I certainly needed the dictionary, and I'm sure most other readers will too without a link.
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A sweet-smelling fragrant substance" – is there a touch of tautology here? If it's sweet-smelling it must be fragrant, and vice vera. (Now I check, I see the OED defines fragrant as "Emitting a sweet or pleasant odour, sweet-smelling.")
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a single bead, more rarely" – stronger stop wanted.
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the bead stand, his cross; and the interior reliefs, his divinity" – I was taught to give the pronoun a capital letter when referring to the Deity. Perhaps that's gone now, but I just mention it.
      No your right. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Triptychs
    • "fixed hinge" – wants a hyphen, I think.
    • "for lay persons used for private devotion" – a comma after "persons" would make it clear that it was the objects and not the persons that were used for private devotion.
    • "Christ Carrying of the Cross" – either Christ's Carrying of the Cross or Christ Carrying the Cross, I suggest. The capitalisation seems a touch lavish here, too, but I don't press the point.
    • "many of these type of altarpieces" – singular-v-plural clash: either this type or these types
    • "contract between" – contrast?
    • Hmm. I was only out one letter. But fine. Changed. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Part of the appeal of the Passion" – I struggle with this sentence. I get that there was a contrast between A and B, but can't work out what is setting what in deep relief.
  • Collections
    • "is with the dukes of Bavaria" – "is that of…" possibly?
      yes, better. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "fiancier" – a pleasing typo: one who regularly gets engaged to be married, no doubt.
      No comment. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Study and conservation
    • "comparatively little research" – comparative to what?

That's all from me. I really enjoyed this article. I note what you say about the inability of photographs to do these works justice, but the ones you have chosen look pretty stunning to me. – Tim riley talk 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim, those suggestions have really helped add polish. Most done down, a few to get back to this evening. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for tardy return – just senescent forgetfulness. I've had a final read-through, and with the repeated caveat that I know nothing of the subject I am happy to support. I have enjoyed revisiting this informative and readable piece, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 16:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Itb was a very rewarding review....many thanks once again. Ceoil (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tkbrett edit

An interesting article about a subject I wasn't even aware existed.

  • The following sentence strikes me as awkward, maybe because of a missing comma: 'Such stylistic traits include broad and densely populated animated scenes, often placed in the words of art historian William Wixom, on "steeply angled ground planes of tiled floors".'
    Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prayer bead (AGO 29365)..." Is it normal to mention the accession number of a piece in the body of an article? I ask because I'm not used to seeing it done that way, though I understand this case may warrant it given that some pieces may not necessarily have a title.
    Its added because "Prayer bead" is so generic, and refers to the overall type rather than the specific example. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair. Tkbrett (✉) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a more general comment, I'm wondering if there's any more information regarding Adam Dircksz? You mentioned that almost nothing is known about him, but the article left me wanting to know more about the origin of the miniatures.

Tkbrett (✉) 07:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for comments, and yes it is fustrating that the origions are not well understood. Have dug deep on Dircksz, and this is it; but as the object type has seem a huge resurgence of interest in just the last 3 years, no doubt a fuller picture will soon emerge. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully more research comes out. In the meantime, this will work great. Tkbrett (✉) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Am considering having a crack at a bio. We'll see. Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "In some instances, boxwood miniatures were lined with or encased in silver." - source?
  • FN1 appears to be dead
  • FN2 should list both speakers
Done Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent date format
Seems to have been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN33: don't see a matching entry under Sources
Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN36 is missing author. Same with FN39
  • FN43: page formatting doesn't match Sources
  • Some but not all Sources periodicals include page numbers - should be consistent
This appears to have been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN66 has some odd formatting
  • Be consistent in whether volume and number are capitalized
This appears to have been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thornton punctuation doesn't match other entries
  • Be consistent in whether you use "NY" or "New York"
This appears to have been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No citations to Gow Mann or Porras. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks as ever Nikki, all sorted now. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Interesting topic, about which I was happy to learn more. A few quibbles:

  • "highly intricate" "extremely intricate" sounds better to my ear, YMMV.
  • I prefer "highly", but not wedded to it. Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while others are standalone triptych altarpieces or statutes." No doubt "statues" is meant.
  • "Their iconography can be linked to contemporary panel painting, sculpture, woodcut engravings, and altarpieces." should painting be plural?
  • "members of high nobility." suggest "high-ranking nobles"
  • "Some of the original owners can be identified from markings, usually, initials or coats of arms, left by the sculptors.[5]" I'm not sure "left" sounds best here, maybe "included" or "placed"?
  • "Boxwood is a hardwood with fine grain and high density, and it is resistant to splitting and chipping—all ideal characteristics for wood carving, although its application is limited by the small size of available wood pieces." I might say "use" for "application", and the ending feels a bit clunky.
Fixed. Attic Salt (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lining with silver sentence needs a citation.
Done., Attic Salt (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other shared features include various spatial devices, figures in contemporary dress, and draperies are arranged in angular folds.[27]" shouldn't the final clause be some sort of noun phrase? It reads strangely to my ear.
The verb "are" is now removed. This probably addresses this concern. Attic Salt (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A minority contain plates of arms " is this like coats of arms?
This phrase is no longer in the article. Attic Salt (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " were probably intended to evoke church setting.[37]" Is "settings" meant?
  • "The rosary beads are mostly around the same size so that they fit into a hand," Shouldn't there be more explicit discussions of the size of these things?
  • "His divinity.[53][44]" Are you going by numerical order for refs?
  • "The panels are usually quite shallow, with just enough dept in the niche, to position the figures, which can either free-standing or carved in high relief." The second comma seems to me unneeded.
  • "The earliest modern collection where they were considered objects of art with intrinsic aesthetic, rather than merely functional, value is that of dukes of Bavaria, as recorded in a 1598 inventory which contains several boxwood miniatures.[66]" Likely a "the" before "dukes".--Wehwalt(talk) 02:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence you mention has been rewritten. Think I have all these now, if you would care to revisit, and many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • Though this has already received "enough" reviews, I'll review it as an excuse to read the article, which seems quite intriguing... Some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Galleries are generally discouraged, unless they serve some point. Maybe if the title of that section could be specified further, it might come across as more necessary.
Butting in - it is absolute nonsense to say that WP:Galleries are generally discouraged, as reading the guideline will show. They have featured in almost every visual arts FAC/FA for years, as Ceoil knows well. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "and the gallery itself should be appropriately titled (unless its theme is clear from context)", which is pretty much what I'm requesting. "Gallery" is pretty vague. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this but not seeing a alternative. If it was "examples" for eg; well not all of the images are. Ceoil (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are covered by "unless its theme is clear from context". Otherwise I duuno, delete it? Doesn't seem like a hill worth fighting for. Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big deal. It seemed the majority of the examples show prayer nuts, but since there are exceptions, this would be a misleading title. Maybe you could have a gallery of only prayer nuts, and another of different types (and more images could thereby be added), but let's just leave it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your last option is under consideration; I'm all for more images:) Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem the subject could warrant the article be tagged as part of some sort of Christianity project as well?
    Yes agree, will do. 09:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a bunch of duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[3]
    Very hand script! and thanks for review FunkMonk, delighted you enjoyed. Ceoil (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and these was divided" were?
  • This image[4] seems to have a lot of unnecessary space at top and bottom, perhaps crop? As a result, it would also take less space.
    Unfortunately am blocked on commons for next two weeks, re an upload that was deleted two years ago <shruh>, but yes, agree and will do then. Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds ridiculous, I can do the crop. Do you have a link that can direct me to discussion of your block? FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would appreciate it you could do the crop. Here you go[5]. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've cropped it and changed the levels. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since everything known about Adam Dircksz seems to have been mentioned here, perhaps his name should be a redirect? Also, I wonder if his full name was Adam Dirckszoon, as is usual for Dutch names of the time.
    Am struggling with this tbh; had thought of a separate page, but there is too little, and its all highly contentious anyway. I think your option of a redirect is best. (ps definitely not Dirckszoon!) Ceoil (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dircksz certainly means Dirckszoon (son of Dirck), but it is normal to use the contraction, as the Dutch do. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (having written a good deal of articles about animals discovered by 17th century Dutch travelers, the contraction often appears), and searching for that name seems to bring some additional sources in Dutch that may be relevant. Maybe MWAK can confirm. FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected! Fram also has an interest in this period, to see if there is much has been missed. Ceoil (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling variations could have included Dir(c)ks, Dir(c)kse and Dir(c)ksen but these do not seem to result in any relevant Google hits. One link seems to be about our subject when searching for Dirckszoon: https://www.debijbel.nl/kennis-achtergronden/bestuur-samenleving/1141/kruisiging refers to an object made for a certain Evert Janszoon van Bleiswijk from Delft, presently in the collection of the Rijksmuseum. This points to a related problem. The text states that Adam Dirckz might have been from the Southern Netherlands because he could have lived in Delft. However, that city is in the county of Holland, in the Northern Netherlands. The article Frits Scholten, "Speelgoed voor de ziel", Kunstschrift 2017(3): 10-19, ( https://www.kunstschrift.nl/index.php?slug=3-2017 ) defends the hypothesis that the artist was from Holland. As it is at least contentious on which side of the present border the man worked, wouldn't it be preferable not to refer to Belgium in the lead? And does the source asserting that some texts are in "Flemish" simply means "Dutch" by this, or do they contain words or phrases typical of Flemish or Brabantian dialects? If only Dutch is meant, the texts cannot be an indication that he was from the south, just that he was not from the Walloon parts of the Netherlands.--MWAK (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MWAK; the info re Evert Janszoon van Bleiswijk is very interesting, and the plot thickens. Re Belgium in the lead, would Low Countries be a better option. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Low Countries" is a good alternative.--MWAK (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MWAK, note the article now also states "Due to their quality and stylistic similarities to the full sized Flemish and Brabantine altarpieces, they were for centuries assumed to originate from Southern Holland, however more recent research has found that a majority of the early owners came from the northern provinces of Holland and Zeeland." Have only linked Zeeland, if you could advise pls. Ceoil (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "Southern Holland" should be Southern Netherlands which in the context of the sixteenth century refers to the area south of the Meuse bend, thus including modern Belgium. It's complex :o). You can either explain this in short — or as much as possible avoid any mention of the modern states, an option I personally prefer in such historical articles. "Holland" can best link to County of Holland.--MWAK (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "known as prayer nuts (the English term comes from the equivalent Dutch word gebedsnoot)" Only linked and explained in the intro, which should not have unique info.
    Now moved to the prayer nuts section. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The earliest record a collection is found" Record of?
  • It is a bit unclear here if all prayer beads covered here are also prayer nuts, or whether the latter is a type of the former. Are there non-prayer nut prayer beads of this type? Otherwise, it might help to be a bit more consistent in what term you use.
  • Done (see below from Johnbod and others) Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well spotted, section re-titled, but need to comb for more of this. Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Part of the appeal of the Passion was that the contrast between relatively simple scenes from the Life of Christ, and highly detailed vistas of more complex scenes, such as the Crucifixion or depictions of Heaven and Hell set in deep relief." I am not sure why the "that" is needed here.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are around 150 surviving examples." Only stated in intro.
  • "Most of the beads are 10–15 cm in diameter" only stated in intro.
  • This is expanded somewhat now in the body. Ceoil (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re this last one, am working up a section on scale, but feeling very lazy today, can't pull myself away from YouTube, and its slow going. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me now. Still going to be a scale section? FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and re scale section, no, not enough solid continuous eximation in the sources to create in that guise; have instead been dotting facts and figures through the article. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Mr rnddude edit

Reviewing for the same reasons as Funk Monk.

  • Polyptychs:
  • Part of the appeal of the Passion was that the contrast between relatively simple scenes from the Life of Christ, and highly detailed vistas of more complex scenes, such as the Crucifixion or depictions of Heaven and Hell set in deep relief - that the ... are what? I think you meant [are] set in deep relief, or perhaps the that isn't needed.
  • ... which can either free-standing or carved in high relief - which can either be or which can be either here. Missing "be" in any case.
Fixed. Attic Salt (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Form:
  • with the interiors hollowed out to make way for elaborate carvings - perhaps accommodate instead of make way for? Optional entirely.
This has been done. Attic Salt (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adam Dircksz:
  • ... or him might have been a patron - him should be he, here.
This has been taken care of. Attic Salt (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other:
  • It's unfortunate that the images don't have alt texts, for the visually impaired reader, but... I haven't a clue how you'd write an alt text for any of these images. Even the human eye is barely sufficient to grasp the depth of detail and quality of workmanship on display.
  • Yes have thought about this too can't really see a solution; there is so much detail that it seems unfair to focus in and describe one or two bits. Let me see. Ceoil (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing this excellent and fascinating article. I have only a few of the most minor suggestions to make for improvements. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr rnddude, nice to see you again and working through. Ceoil (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Interesting article about something I'd never heard of before. A couple of minor nit-picky points to have a look at:

Production
  • "surface when polished".[9]" There is no opening quote mark to this (and it doesn't need to be a quote, given the information)
Got this Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution
  • "Charles VI,[23] and Albert V of": you use the serial comma here, but don't elsewhere – it's worth having a quick spin round and making it consistent one way or the other
    Fixed but scanning. Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Albert V of Bavaria,[24] are known to have owned": comma after Bavaria not needed
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adam
  • "and medallist, or him might have been": needs a tweak
Fixed that one. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and the article has an abundance of the phrase "have been", which I need to sort. Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Prayer beads
  • "According to art historian": no definite article here, but you have in a couple of other places – worth checking for consistency
This has been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "jewelry" – I see colour and a couple of other British spellings, so this should be jewellery
This has been addressed, though one example of "jewelry" appears in a quotation. Attic Salt (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Your last source (Wixom, 1983) seems to be missing a page number – it's "pp. 38–4"
Done. Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have them all now Schro, and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A final readthrough after the recent changes, and this has my support. As an ignoramus in the field, this review is on prose only. - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Johnbod edit

  • "The majority are spherical prayer nuts (rosary beads; the English term ..." - prayer nut ≠ rosary bead, I think. Some may have been part of a rosary, but apparently most not. There are some questionable uses of "rosary" later on. The BM page on the Waddesdon Bequest one starts "Rosary bead or prayer-nut" & doesn't mention rosaries thereafter. Probably better to drop the word - "Rosary bead with the Vision of St Hubert and St George and the Dragon" -seems very odd iconogaphy for a rosary, and the section dealing with this one on the Ontario site doesn't use the word.
Now " The majority are types of spherical rosary beads known as prayer nuts (the English term comes from the equivalent Dutch word gebedsnoot)". Will look at Hubert and St George. 08:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
This is well above my pay grade, and perhaps I have got this wrong, but aren't they used as, or at least derived from, the larger paternoster bead in a single-decade rosary? What other function might a prayer nut perform? Ostentatious display disguised as devotion? (That said, perhaps they were something like a netsuke or chatelaine.) Theramin (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Theramin, for the first part, ostentatious might well cover it. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to have mostly been used by themselves, as in the portrait in the gallery. In the Chatsworth one, the other beads are equally intricate, but if this was typical, where have all the other beads gone? But see next point. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, from the sources I have read, it seems there are (at least two?) extant boxwood miniatures of the beads in the form of a rosary. There are sources talking about them as paternoster beads, or at least derived from them, but the lack of visible wear suggests they were probably kept safely away and brought out infrequently, not handled daily. They are really too small to be practical objects (or indeed subjects) of private devotion in themselves. Maybe they are just expensive objets d'art to demonstrate impeccable taste. Another source suggests a link with the pomander, which is mentioned already. The image at prayer nut seems to show one attached to a chain, which could be a rosary, or a pomander, or just a security device. I'm not saying we need to decide what they are, but rather that perhaps the article could address this aspect a little better. But as I said, this is well above my pay grade, and I'll just shut up. Theramin (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to have more on the one that is a form of rosary - that "gifted by Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon", aka the "Chatsworth Rosary", which you don't say. You say (as changed by Attic Salt) "Some are a single bead; more rare are those consisting of up to eleven beads, including those gifted by Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon". Are there in fact others with this form? Ok, I see here it says there are two in total - better say that. Since we presumably can't use a pic, you should probably describe it more fully, and link to the good pic on the Ontario site.
Rosary beads vs prayer nuts delineated. Chatsworth beads now covered. Still, the paragraphs are WIP - some points raised raised not dealt with. Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very good Ontario "Boxwood Project" site doesn't have a link, which it should. Presumably this summarizes/extracts from: Ellis, Lisa; Suda, Alexandra. Small Wonders: Gothic Boxwood Miniatures, but it is all online.
Done. Attic Salt (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gossamer" - is this just a vague comparison, or the actual textile? The link goes to: "gossamer. A gossamer is a very light, sheer, gauze-like fabric, popular for white wedding dresses and decorations". If the textile is what is meant it needs a bit more explanation.
    Have taken this out. Ceoil (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A Last Judgement in the Art Gallery of Ontario contains some thirty separately carved spikes set into the ceiling vault and around Christ.[12]" and soon after "An example of this layering technique is in the Prayer bead (AGO 29365) in the Art Gallery of Ontario, where minuscule, individually carved, pointed rods suggesting rays of light were added to the vaulted ceiling via tiny drilled holes.[14" - do these refer to the same piece? Is it illustrated? If not, can the refs link to a pic? Maybe consolidate the two mentions.
    Yes its the same piece and have merged. Link added to the AGO page. Considering using a reproduction under fair usage (who would then make 3 FUs). Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Image added. Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a central panel with major saints (the corpus) with two ancillary wings" - "corpus" in this sort of context usually means the body, as opposed to the cross, of a Crucifix. Not aware of this sense of the word.
    Fixed Ceoil (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tracery can be categorised into three different styles." - presume this para is talking about the mainly geometric decoration of the outside. This needs to be made clear. Looking at Commons, I must say I'm not seeing many slices of pie. Also, there are no illustrations of the outsides until the end of the article.
    Have reworded this to be more clear, also image of an exterior now added to the prayer nut section. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be inclined to rejig the Adam Dircksz section, moving the 2nd para to near the start of the 1st. That he was the artist is a convenient but pretty speculative idea.
    And it seems falling from favour. Hold on....Ceoil (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boxwood miniatures follow in the tradition of earlier Christian sculptures" - yes, but you might mention the contemporary taste for very miniature luxury devotional objects in other media, notably jewellery, often with enamel, & also very tiny illuminated manuscripts. Nothing quite this tiny, I admit.
If you see a place to add more content of this type, please go ahead and add it. Note that the article already mentioned fashionable accessories and the use of beads as pendants hung from necklaces; it now does mention illuminated manuscripts. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miniature boxwood triptychs, diptychs, and other polyptychs tend to be either standalone altarpieces or fixed-hinge pieces embedded in a larger structures such as tabernacles." - check where that link goes! Not very useful. Not sure we have an appropriate one - ok - Church tabernacle - changed. I find the 2nd part of the sentence rather unclear.
    Me too, and doubt now that many are fixed hinged, and have simplified as "Miniature boxwood triptychs, diptychs, and other polyptychs tend to be either altarpieces or tabernacles"...which is now linked to Church tabernacle. Ceoil (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A triptych altarpiece (MMA 17.190.453) in the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a compartment for holding relics.[60]" as does the Waddesdon BM 1511 one - see BM link I added (expanded content).
    • Perhaps a separate article might be nice. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • for now have expanded on WB.232 Ceoil (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think adding a single row mini-gallery with the good photos of the disassembled one at Commons Category:Prayer_Bead_with_Jesus_Carrying_the_Cross would be good - tells 1,000 words etc. Need to be careful not mixing up the a & b halves though.
  • Yes, like this idea. There are new sources in the Ontario link you provided above, not just Ellis & Suda, and lots of material on Dircksz, so may add another gallery after some expansion today. Thanks! Ceoil (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gallery now added. Take the point re a & b halves, it can get confusing. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd imagine they were "considered objects of art with intrinsic aesthetic value" from the start, surely, so I'd rephrase what was novel in the Duke of Bavaria having a collection (which essentially was, just collecting them).
    Have lessened the claim, against my better judgement tbh; gifted trinkets vs aesthetically pleasing historical objects of rare craftsmanship. Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fiddled to get "re-emerged in 19th century Paris, then the leading market for medieval and Renaissance art" - but my impression, depending a bit on date, is that Paris was where you went for medieval art, but London for Renaissance art, or certainly paintings.
    Restated as "the leading market for medieval art." Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong Rothschild, I'm pretty sure - you link to Edmond Adolphe de Rothschild, born 1926. Easily done - but you should check where all the links go as there have been a couple going astray already, & I haven't checked most of them. Are you sure you aren't looking for an "Alphonse R"? There are many of them, eg Alphonse James de Rothschild, a big collector.
    have clarified here (you were right). Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, have cut Adolphe, and added short section on Kenneth Thomson, though he probably deserves more. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the American financier J. P. Morgan purchased Baron Albert Oppenheim's collection in 1906, he acquired four boxwood miniatures, including a triptych with the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and a prayer nut showing the Carrying of the Cross.[72][73]" - and where are they now? Well, in the Met, and illustrated above! As well as the book ref, why not link to the Met pages on these? I presume "a prayer nut showing the Carrying of the Cross" is the one whose category I've linked to above, which the MET rather oddly treats as two "Half of a Prayer Bead"s: 17.190.473a (Carrying the Cross) and 17.190.473b (Crucifixion). Both were given by Morgan in 1917. If so, the other half should be recognised: "Carrying of the Cross and Crucifixion".

Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John, slowly working through all of these very attuned and astute points. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there now. Johnbod would you mid revisiting pls. Ceoil (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least three points above have no response. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed now. Ceoil (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, ready to support now. If it was me I'd remove the 3 per row from the gallery format though. Nice article. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Starting image review. Most of the images seem properly licensed. The following three use fair-use rationales:

  • File:Prayer Bead in the Form of a Skull.jpg
  • File:Adoration of the Magi, Triptych, Flemish.jpg
  • File:Rosary bead with the Vision of St Hubert and St George and the Dragon.jpg

I'm not sure what is usual for this kind of article, but I was wondering whether with so many free images in the article, there needs to be this many non-free images. (If, for example, there are precedents for this many non-free images—for instance among your other successful art FACs—that could be helpful to know.)

I'll continue the review after by looking at alt text, captions, etc. Moisejp (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All three images, but especially the first two, show types of objects with the subject that are not replicated among the free photos. Most art FAs concern architecture or painting, where the image issues are very different. I know it strictly speaking may not matter, but all three images are on a Creative Commons non-commercial license from the Ontario museum. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the third one - instead now have a single row gallery in the prayer nuts section. One thing, there are not that many objects with free images at it might seem; many used on the article are different views of the same piece. Two FUs seems reasonable, esp considering their dramatic novelty; it would be very difficult to use words to accurately describe the unusualness of either...ie i think their inclusion has significant utility for the reader. Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mosiejp. To note that the difficulty of using alt text in this article (they are so detailed that there will be selection bias) has been discussed above. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the arguments above are convincing. About the captions, it's a minor point, but I notice there's some inconsistency. Some have "Title", height: xxx. And others have "Height" (big H) later in the list of characteristics. "Prayer Bead with the Crucifixion and Jesus before Pilate" and "Prayer Bead with the Crucifixion and Jesus before Pilate" don't mention the height (possibly there's a good reason I missed). Miniature altar seems to be the only one that mentions material (boxwood and silver). The gallery pictures seem to have more irregularity still. It'd be nice if there was consistency in the details given, the order of information, and the presentation (e.g., small vs big H for "height"). Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see; your right about inconsistencies. Working through & will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support and tiny comments from DBaK edit

I was gobsmacked and delighted by this lovely article, which I wish to support, and would like to add myself to the queue of people saying "I had no idea these existed, how great", an ting. I'm sorry I am late to the party but I have some very minor comments to offer (note here too boring for 99% of readers) so here, with apologies for their brevity and cluelessness, they are:

  • In the lead's 1st paragraph I was slightly bothered by the contiguous blue in Gothic boxwood miniatures are very small carved wood Christian religious sculptures  – I thought that we tried to avoid doing this as to me it draws the eye to something which appears to be a link to an adjectival article title, carved wood Christian which to me looks odd. Could we possibly reword very slightly and split the blue?
  • Discussion on talk re this. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead, 1st paragraph – micro carving seems clunky – should it not perhaps be micro-carving or even microcarving?
  • In Formats/Prayer Nuts/4th paragraph I suspect that the Caps for His when referring to Christ are probably not appropriate here.
  • Lead, 3rd paragraph and Attribution and dating/Adam Dircksz/1st paragraph – the two sentences here saying that Almost nothing is known about Dircksz seem to somewhat contradict each other, as the first is his signature and the second is the date of his works. So I think there could be a tiny sort-out of that?
  • In addition, in the example of Almost nothing is known about Dircksz above in the lead, I found the formula around outside of the signature rather awkward. That is, his signature just is: it is not exactly known, and then I find outside of his sig rather infelicitous – it is kind of physically awkward. If I had more time I would try to explain this better!
  • Still in the lead (you can see how I ran out of steam here!) I am struggling with this right at the end: Because of their rarity and the difficulty in discerning their intricacy from reproductions, boxwood miniatures are relatively understudied compared to other forms of Netherlandish visual art. To me, understudied is what has happenened to an actor's or singer's part when it's worked on by a person called an understudy. As in Oh yes darling I understudied Noye for Owen Brannigan with Ben or whatevs. (Note: I did not). Seeing it written here as one word meaning that something has not been studied much seems a really weird usage. I have not yet taken to my books to try to prove my point but I do honestly think it would be best avoided here.
  • Production/4th paragraph – Because of their diminutive scale, wood pieces were difficult to hold in place (brace) during carving. – I don't understand why it is worded thus. It seems unusual to give the technical expression in parentheses after you've defined it, indeed to me the other way round would make more sense: Because of their diminutive scale, wood pieces were difficult to brace (hold in place) during carving. or even just lose the slightly fussy parentheses and have something like Because of their diminutive scale, wood pieces were difficult to "brace" or hold in place during carving. ... or something. Update - and now I hate my quote marks too. Sigh. Just lose them?
  • I asked on Commons for the filename "Prayer nut with carrying of the cross and crucifixion - carryinig the cross.jpg" to be changed as the spelling was bugging the merry h*ll out of me and some nice person has come and done it here before I got round to it, so thanks!
  • Am I wrong to feel cautious about the use (3x) of microscopic? Is there really, literally stuff that small? I really don't have the optical knowledge to judge what this entails so if I am wrong just tell me to shut up!
  • have reworded two of the instances Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am officially stfu-ing now as it is so charmingly put. I hope this helps. I love the article! Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the demands DBaK, these are most helpful always great to receive feedback and suggestions from you. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

& re had known nothing...your not alone [6] Ceoil (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gothic_boxwood_miniature/archive1&oldid=1136097588"