Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:15, 16 December 2019

Visual arts FA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

	Beaune Altarpiece is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 28, 2019.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 6, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted

A fact from Beaune Altarpiece appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 December 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Rogier van der Weyden's polyptych painting The Last Judgment (detail pictured), commissioned for the Hospices de Beaune, was intended to both comfort and warn the dying? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2013/December.

[REDACTED]

Moving

Victoria and I (Victoria, look what happens if you give me an inch...I take your name in vain) think this would be better called Beaune altarpiece. Aside from the missing definite article, which apparently can't be included because Misplaced Pages policy frowns on including articles (the irony!; some sort of irony anyway, homonym irony I suppose), the inclusion of the artist's name seems awkward when there are commonly used alternative titles that don't require disambiguation. Please add supportive comments below. Belle (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. Ceoil (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Two things: 1.) Beaune Altarpiece - like the Ghent Altarpiece - or Beaune altarpiece? and 2.) I want to think this through a bit more, because it will require a rejigging of quotes in the article referencing the Last Judgement, and so on. Victoria (tk) 19:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd go for Beaune Altarpiece, and for sure. Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, done and mostly fixed throughout. Good call, Bellemora! I like it! Victoria (tk) 20:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Go, me! (How do we redirect all the other titles?) Belle (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, go you! Dunno, I went through all the links on "what links here" and couldn't find it on some of the pages (except in the template). I didn't bother with talk pages and subpages and such - only article space. If I have a moment today, I'll take another swing through. Victoria (tk) 11:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant like Beaune altarpiece and all those other red links I left scattered on your talk page (or do you think redirecting those is overkill?) Belle (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh those! Yes, they should be redirected. Will try to do it today (am about to go out on break). Victoria (tk) 11:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

How about moving the main image to the centre top? It would be novel but it might work well. I just tried it on preview, centred, increased to 650px, with a br/ after it to create a space after the image, and it looked quite dramatic. Solves the problem of squashed text. Not sure if it's allowed, but I can't see why not. SlimVirgin 03:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea. I tried it. Ask Ceoil though. He's kicked me off this page. Victoria (tk) 03:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There were strict instructions not to post there when I last looked and I'm a coward. :) I saw you try it on the other page and it did look nice. We used to have top images in the centre and on the left from time to time, but then for some reason it stopped and now everything looks the same. At least we've moved away from tiny images. That was a bad period, when everything was so small you could hardly see it. It was thanks to Tony1 (partly or entirely, I don't remember) that that got fixed. SlimVirgin 03:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it was Tony who pushed to have the thumbnails boosted. I've struck the comment about Ceoil (wasn't very nice) and I'll take a big step back here for a week or more. Thanks, though, for the suggestion. Definitely on the to do list.Victoria (tk) 04:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi; I've left aligned the lead image and it makes a lot more sence in terms of the way tyhe painting itself is aligned, and in reducing test squash. Its still not even approcaching satifactory, but given the limits, I think best for now. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's better; and as you say given the limits the best solution imo. Victoria (tk) 17:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks horrible on my screen ("horrible" as defined by the International Institute for Taste which, as you know, is the governing body for matters of image alignment in articles). Is that centre-top alignment not possible? It would give it a bit more DURRRH!! Belle (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased with Johnbod's and Belle's solution today; we get a good look at the inner panels without any text squash. Plus its dramatic. Ceoil (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this looks very nice! Good job and thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Overcrowding in Hell (and its queues)

"the damned arrive en masse at the mouth of Hell, but each of them falls headlong into damnation alone". It looks like it is the other way round in the picture, and the detail of the poor souls falling shows them crowded together (to be fair, if you are about to fall into Hell, there'd probably be a bit of bunching around the entrance; "No, please after you; I just remembered I left the oven on and I have to collect the kids from their after-school club; stop pushing at the back, there's plenty of room for everybody."). Belle (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've commented it out for now, (diff), because in the para about Hell we have this: "Hell is a place of fire and gloom into which the damned tumble screaming and crying". Different source, and I'd want Ceoil to agree, but I think it's best to keep the descriptions of the scurrying souls together (I don't like loosing scurrying so will come back to re-jig a bit). Victoria (tk) 00:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

<cough> To explain myself, I meant that the saved walk in single file and are greeted at the gate by St Paul. The damned are in groups and there is no beasties pushing therm along or pushing them into the mouth of hell, as you often see, they are ultimatly alone. I think the reference is that hell is the absence of god. Added a bit there now. Ceoil (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(nothing to do with the above query, but I'm reusing the section for economy's sake) In the "Exterior panels" section: "Rolin is shown in profile in each work.". He's not. Belle (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Back again after reading and re-reading this section in the source. Lane clearly says they bunch together before falling into hell so for now I've put it back. If Ceoil has a chance, maybe he can re-read the source too and comment. Lane also writes about Lochner in the same para and it's not entirely clear which painting she's referring to. Victoria (tk) 20:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it Victoria, but I think either Lane must be talking about the Lochner painting or she's unclear on what she's trying to convey. "The saved walk in single file towards the gates of Heaven where they are greeted individually by a saint; the damned arrive en masse at the mouth of Hell, but each of them falls headlong into damnation alone." If you look at the painting, both the saved and the damned walk mostly in single file (there's a couple on both sides too), and bunch together at the entrances (so "greeted individually by a saint" is wrong as well), and the damned fall in a group; they are even grabbing at one another while they fall (one man appears to be about to lick another man's elbow; no wonder he got damned). Belle (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, and keep them coming. I'm still working my way through sources and will address these as I get to them. Victoria (tk) 23:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry...some more Qs/suggestions:

• in the opening: "In addition, a heavy layer of over-paint was applied during restoration". Unless this is talking about the clothes painted over the nude figures, it is not mentioned again

It seems to be later than that again, but not finding anything; might remove. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• in "Exterior panels": "The lower two depict Saint Sebastian and Saint Anthony, two healing saints and appropriate to a hospital setting". This is a repetition of facts from the "Commission and hospice" section

Gone now I think. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• in "Sources and influences": "This is most evident in the manner in which the oversized and dispassionate Christ orchestrates the scene from Heaven. He towers over the other figures, extending across two vertical registers of panels, with the saints on the wing panels". I don't think re-describing it is necessary as you cover this in the "upper register" section.

Gone now I think. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• in "Sources and influences": "and how the judge's scales tilt far more underneath the weight of the damned than the saved". I don't understand this. They tilt equally as they are scales and he's shown weighing one of each simultaneously. I suppose this is just unclear phrasing and not a mistake.

The damned weigh heaver than the saved, so the scale tilts to the vewers left. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• in "Belle's ego section": "Look at me! Look at me! I found a handful of minor mistakes in your article". This section should be deleted and not included in any other articles. Belle (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these Belle. I've clarified and tweaked the bit about Anthony & Sebastion's role as healing saints, which should be more specific in exterior description; have added bits here and there and tweaked the section clarifying that in Rogier's painting the scales tip lower for the damned than the saved. I'm on the fence re the description of Christ towering over the others and extending across two panels - I think that got moved from elsewhere and unless I'm blind I don't see that we mention exactly that aspect in another section, but I could be wrong. The other two points, re the overpainting and Rolin painted in profile (or not) are in a source I don't have, so leaving those for Ceoil to check. Victoria (tk) 21:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple more before I go to bed:

• This is repetitive and unclear: "This is evident in its positioning in the chapel, within view of the patients' beds. Rolin specified that 30 beds be placed within sight of the altarpiece for those too ill to walk, in the chapel, where it was visible to the patients through a pierced screen, within sight of daily morning Mass."
• "Each angel is dressed in liturgical vestments: including an alb and amice" I don't see amices (but maybe that's the resolution). Belle (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

And now I'm rested, refreshed, and back to my delightful self:

• "As they rise at Michael's feet the men and women show little expression"; just a couple of sentences ago all the saved were said to have "the same beatific expressions".
• In "Lower register", the absence of the demons is repeated about three times (though in subtly different ways which is why I didn't just splat it) Belle (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, will get to these (and any other needed tweaks) later today. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, from top to bottom:

• Overcrowding (vs. individuals) > clarified now I think. Maybe we've even belabored the point?
• Rolin in profile > gone now, I think
• Heavy layer of overpaint > I've reworked the condition section.
• Anthony and Sebastian in the exterior panels > developed the association w/ the Duke of Burgundy and hence (probably) their presence
• "in the chapel" > removed
• Amice – the angel carrying the cross seems to have an amice on its shoulders, but it is hard to see because it's white on white. I've tweaked there a bit
• Little expression vs. "beatific expression" > restructured and hopefully clarified the transformation that seems to occur as the figures rise and are then sent to one side or the other
• Absence of demons x three - I've removed one instance (Lane's quote) but ended up adding a different quote explaining the single line to bunching. Every source discusses the absence of demons, and since it's mentioned differently, I think ok, because again (although the sources don't say this) the piece was to be seen by dying people, in torment and presumably no demons were chasing them.

That's all for now! Victoria (tk) 01:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, pain in the bum here again. You've mostly cleared up my queries but there are a few remaining:

• The line "The saved walk in single file towards the gates of Heaven where they are greeted by a saint; the damned arrive en masse at the mouth of Hell, but each of them falls headlong into damnation alone" is still in there (if the "alone" refers to their inner torment, it's too esoteric here).
• I rearranged the section on the absence of devils, so their absence is mentioned only twice. I think it is marvellous now.
• I don't think that is an amice over the angel's shoulder there. It looks like a stole as it flaps around behind him/her/it.
• Ceoil was whining about me tormenting him. He's such a cry-baby, but I doubt there is anything we can do about that.

That's it, my pretties . Belle (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

For some reason when I added the Ridderbos quote I thought I'd trimmed back en masse, so thanks for coming back to look. It's gone now. I've commented out amice and alb because I don't have the source, but the snippet view does show a description of the vestments but not enough for me to see the specifics. In another article he's written, which I do have, he does go into detail about albs & stoles (and, yes, some Netherlandish images do show the stoles flapping around), but for now, I've decided to go simply with vestments until someone else can check or wants to change. Victoria (tk) 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The "falling...alone" was the problem with the damned (probably not their major concern as they are on the lookout for those pesky people trying to lick their elbows as they fall into damnation in a big group). I've rephrased it here (reintroducing en masse because I know you like that; you lurve it; you want to marry it), but I don't know if the source supports my change (obviously I'll be right if there is any dispute; I bet I could beat up Lane in a fight if that's what it takes; there's a picture of her here and she looks like she is made of custard). Belle (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I went to bed thinking I gotten that wrong, again. Nice to peek in to see it fixed. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference l170 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Hayum (1977), 505

Image placement

In the subsection Exterior panels, would the pictures of Rolin and de Salins go better nearer the bottom of the section, closer to the paragraphs most specifically about them? Tom Harrison 10:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea; just changed them around now. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Belle, just a note about this edit, removing "center" makes File:Rogier van der Weyden - The Last Judgment Polyptych - WGA25625.jpg bleed into the left-hand sidebar on a couple of browsers I've tried, which means there are words on top of the image. With the same window size, and "center," it overlaps to the right of the screen, which doesn't look so odd. I don't know what other people see, though. It looks fine on the mobile version. SlimVirgin 19:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As it is now, the TOC is squashed and only renders a single word at a time, which isn't optimal. When it was centered, the TOC was fine. When it was on the left, it looked fine to me, but Belle said it looked bad. SlimVirgin is seeing text overlap without the center alignment - so it's problematic. I have Safari and haven't had time to check other browsers, but I will. I think the more input we get, the better. Victoria (tk) 23:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The toc currently looks okay for me, but previously with that placement, I had the squished toc too. I think perhaps the clear tag {{-}} should be below the image, rather than below the toc. SlimVirgin 00:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

When Johnbod (mostly) and I shifted it around the other day I thought everybody (not literally everybody, obviously; though apparently literally now means figuratively, so literally everybody) said it looked good, so that's why I put it back earlier. For me, if it is centered, I get the opening paragraphs with the "closed" image next to them, then the "open" image almost centered below it and then the TOC left aligned below which looks bad as there is white space all over the shop (not a literal shop except in the new mean of literal). There's probably some smart code to make the TOC go where there is space, but as it took me ages to find the strange code for putting it in "non-automatically", that's beyond me (though when I've mastered kung fu in the Matrix, I'll do TOC placement; should be about twenty minutes). Belle (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The images are what I see with the current set-up (the file placed to the right). The first is my usual window size (I work with small browser windows because I have several open at once); with my usual size, the image bleeds into the left sidebar. As I make the window larger, the image moves to the right and the white space on the left increases. SlimVirgin 01:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh. That's not what I see at all. For me the TOC is aligned to the left of the image, which is nice. When I first looked at it, I hadn't noted that the TOC renders one word per line, b/c that's how a lot of TOCs are. I'll try to get up a screenshot tomorrow. Very tired and a little cranky tonight. If I don't get it up tomorrow, I'll do it next week. I have to be gone for a few days. Victoria (tk) 01:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've got a bigger screen than you (nuh nuh) so the TOC sits quite happily to the left of the big image, and the TOC, two images, and lead make a pleasing rectangle of content. I've tried another arrangement here which on my screen isn't as pretty as the right aligned image below the text but is more pretty than the centre aligned version. Have a look and rate it on your personal ugliness scale. Isn't there some template to summon an image template wizard? I can't believe we'll have to go for the least generally ugly layout (That's horrible! Yes, but you should have seen it before.) Belle (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) (Apologies, by the way, if you had edit conflicts. I kept trying to reposition the images and some weird things were happening.) I also used to see the toc on the left, but now it's below. I can't see why that would have changed. I did like Belle's posting the image at the very top of the article. SlimVirgin 01:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I was able to test the image placement last night on a PC laptop, with Windows/Chrome. If left right aligned, if the window is completely maximized it's fine; but when the window is shrunk, the image creeps over and over into the left gutter and overlaps the text there - just as SV's screenshot shows. For some reason that doesn't happen with the center alignment - which is what I'd changed it back to a few nights ago. I might test on a desktop too, but I'm thinking it's moot because we should prevent it for a PC laptop with Windows/Chrome, not an uncommon configuration. I'm not seeing it on my Mac, so it's probably caused by browser & operating system. Just to bore everyone. Victoria (tk) 14:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Still testing this - screenshot of what I see on my mongo huge screen desktop computer. Adding another {{clear}} stopped the overlap. I checked the right alignment too and had lots of problems (sorry, no screenshots) with the TOC. I think these are browser issues, fwiw. Centered seems to be the best w/ the current fix; but it would be nice to get the image to display for the full width. Panorama maybe? Don't know the markup for that. Victoria (tk) 19:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That's Ok on my big screen, except it still has the ugly whitespace taking up half the lead section (like your image shows (I assume you have the TOC left aligned under the big image with whitespace off to the right). What about my earlier arrangement that started with the big image before the text . SlimVirgin and I both liked that (that's a whole two votes out of a possible voting population of about 6 billion; I'd call that pretty convincing). Belle (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but the TOC whitespace shows up on every article. Anyway, using some different markup, that I stole from Ruhrfisch, and removing all the "clear"s and stuff, I ended up with this version with the image at the top. It's not bad; in fact I quite like it. Would want to know Ceoil's opinion though. That version doesn't bleed off the page on my laptop but I suppose should be checked on other computers. We'll get there eventually. Victoria (tk) 00:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the inner panels above the lead; greater impact given most people click, scroll briefly and then leave. It might better hold their attention. Plus it's very dramatic! also the inner wings are so so. Ceoil (talk)

Fine with me. I changed it earlier in the week b/c when I looked at it at work the far right panels were cut off. At that time it seemed important to that all of the altarpiece is visible but I honestly don't think it's possible to get it to render perfectly for all the operating system/browser combinations. Victoria (tk) 17:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

cloths

Until C19 restoration the cloths behind Rolin & his wife were "decorated with a pattern of scarlet & gold", per

Yes, I think it is. That's a good review, thanks for finding it. Will work on it today. Victoria (tk) 11:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And done now. Victoria (tk) 18:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Description section

Wondering about: "The closed view comprises two upper and four lower registers shutters ..." Is that "registers or shutters"? SlimVirgin 22:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A blip I think - now "The closed view comprises two upper and four lower panels on the outside of the shutters, which are separately hinged and each able to close independently of the others." Presumably the two lower grisaille panels are attached by their hinges to the donors' panels, but I don't quite like to say so without a ref. Could maybe do with more clarifying. Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The donors' panels hinge to the lower grisaille and the upper grisaille hinge to the center panel. I'll trawl through history and find an earlier version or rewrite it. Victoria (tk) 23:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure what to do with it. SlimVirgin 23:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a hard one and it took me a while to understand the source. I've tweaked it a little, so hopefully better now. If not, I can have another go. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Top image

The top image of this article is set at 700px & that's way too large for this article. It's even bigger the the width of the article itself. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is something we have struggled with for a while - see discussions above. At no time did your reflexive shrink down to a smaller size than the reverse side gain traction. Please don't edit war without thought or research; lack of diligence will only entrench incumbents. Ceoil (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The new full-article width size is acceptable. Better then when it exceeded the width. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

lead images

Thanking Paul Hermans for adding versions of the interior and exterior panels *with frames* yesterday. I just am delighted. Thank you Paul. Ceoil (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

thx for thanking me :) You'll find more of my pictures here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Hermans (talk • contribs) 07:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Main page appearance

This is to let people know that this article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 28, 2019, and specifically paging the FAC nominator(s), Ceoil and Victoriaearle. It would be good if someone checked that the article needs no amendments. The main page blurb text can be viewed and edited at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/December 28, 2019.—Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

thanks. Will look over. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. Good choice! Will take a look before then. Victoria (tk) 22:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, hi Victoria, and hi to any other interested editors. This is to let you know that as a part of preparing this article for TFA I have asked GOCE to run an eye over it for MoS-compliance and grammar, and possible tweaking of a little of the language to ensure that it is at it's very best for its appearance on the main page. If you have any queries about any of the edits don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks. PS I have just read through it myself and thoroughly enjoyed it. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild for sending this to GOCE but do you mind holding off until I get a chance to run through it? The issue here is that it's a complicated article, the scholarly sources aren't exactly easy to read, I'll have to retrieve them from wherever they were stuffed away some years ago, and I'm concerned that a simple "copy edit" could change meanings. There were many long discussions when preparing the article for FAC in terms of wording, and the result adheres closely to the sources. I'll try to get started on this asap. Thanks for the ping. Victoria (tk) 13:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC) Adding: in fact if you think it needs GOCE, then it should go to FAR. Can you post a couple of examples so I know what caused a FAC to be sent to GOCE pre-TFA? Victoria (tk) 13:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Victoria: No problem. I will put it on hold. However, with all due modesty as I am one of them, the GOCE editors who are likely to touch an article of this quality are well practised at not changing the meaning of an article. Honestly, our complaint rate is pretty much zero. That said, if you would really it weren't looked at, let me know and I will cancel the proposed copy edit. I do these pre-TFA checks as a labour of love, wanting all FAs to look their best when they appear on the main page. (It started when I was chagrined to find people picking up "basic" errors in one of mine a few months ago.) No! It most definitely does not need FAR! (IMHO.) I suspect that there are a couple of areas of non-MoS compliance, and a couple of areas where the flow of the phraseology could be tweaked. Obviously, any changes are subject to your approval; and revert anything you don't like. It is unheard of for a GOCE copy editor to come back and argue the toss on an article of this quality, that is not what we are about. So, it is on hold, awaiting your word to go ahead or not. If I don't hear from you, I will assume that you prefer that it not be checked over. Again, as a multiple-FACer myself, can I express my appreciation for the work that has gone into this superb article. I can only dream of producing work this good.

In case you are interested, the December tracking of TFAs-to-be for copy editing or not is here. I confess that there is more than a little subjectivity in how I triage them. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Once upon a decade I was part of GOCE & am fully aware of it; this article has had few edits in the five years since its promotion and little needs to be done; the two nominators are fairly adept FA writers - obviously Ceoil runs circles around me, but I've written a couple of FAs - and seeing changes made that are preferences is disheartening in the least. For health reasons I'm barely active but had hoped to be able to get to this. At this point I give up, wash my hands, and turn it over to all of you, but under protest. Still have at it. In my view if there's another layer on top of FAC, then people should be aware of it. They aren't. Victoria (tk) 01:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

One of the recent copy edits changed some of the image sizes when moving from fixed to upright. I've tried to approximate the previous sizes, but I'm having difficulty with the final two—I'm having to make them significantly larger to restore the previous appearance—so I've left them in case it's a problem with my computer/browser. SarahSV 02:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I also meant to say that an art article in which the images are prominent should probably count as one of the exceptions to avoiding fixed sizes. These are allowed where "absolutely necessary", which is not defined. See MOS:IMGSIZE. I would have thought it necessary here, especially for logged-in users with size preferences larger than the default; the images on their screens will be enormous. SarahSV 04:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Victoria: I may be misreading you, but your second post above sounds rather less enthusiastic about anyone else looking at the article than your first. So I have cancelled the GOCE request and will hold off from making any changes myself. Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, there are some challenges that make editing difficult for me, and I tend to get cranky, so sorry about that. It's not an issue of ownership or anything like that, it's an issue of needing to be immersed in the sources, understanding that there are fifteen paintings on nine panels, an interior view & an exterior view. Plus the historical background, the story of the commission, the description, the iconography and van der Weyden's innovations make it a tricky article. It took us years to work it up and it wasn't an easy article to get to FA level. Honestly most of the issues I'm finding are on me, and I'm familiar with my writing, have the sources at hand, so would prefer to run through first and fix my own mess. I've gotten as far as the damned, but need to stop now. Not sure when I can get back here but will make an effort to return tomorrow night. Hope this makes sense. Victoria (tk) 05:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Victoria: Cranky is OK. After the sweat and effort of producing a thing of joy and beauty such as this article, then personally I feel that a bit of cranky is entirely understandable. Many editors appreciate a bit of a final tidy up before the trauma of TFA day; some don't – that's fine. If I have added to the angst you feel over the whole process, can I humbly apologise - coming across as "a Kevin" was the last thing I wished to do. (I have just discovered that thread - it reminded me why I never look at the errors page any more, even for "my" TFAs. (I just revert out the stuff I don't like in the big clean up a few days afterwards. Oddly, no one has ever objected to or even commented on this to me.) I haven't read through all of it yet, but I though that your "some of us take main page day as a necessary but unpleasant part of bringing an article through to featured status - which really should mean that it's reached a stable and best-that-we-can-do condition with unpaid volunteers doing the heavy lifting" was bang on the money.) I can see a little of the interdependent issues you have in the article and can only admire how well you have dealt with them so far. It will be good to see this one read by few tens of thousands of readers on the 28th. I am sure that for many it will be real perception changer. Best wishes. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

US postal codes for states in citations should not be used, per MOS

MOS:POSTABBR says that Postal codes and abbreviations of place names – e.g. Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks. (Yorkshire) – should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text. This includes when specifying places of publication in source citations. I changed "CT" to "Connecticut", but this improvement to comply with MOS was reverted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It's in MOS, so feel free to return your improvement. We've got your back. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 and Finnusertop: while remembering that the MOS is not a 3RR exemption, of course. ——SN54129 11:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

With respect, I would rather see someone else make this improvement. There are two state abbreviations to be fixed. I have encountered very negative and irrational reactions from some of the primary editors of this article while making rational, reader-friendly changes to articles in the past. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit notes

Here are some copy editing notes for the article. Some of this is quite nit-picky; please receive it constructively.

Lead:

• The {{short description}} is 69 characters; 40 characters is the "target" size (Misplaced Pages:Short description). I would suggest using "15th-century Netherlandish artwork". I used artwork since altarpiece is already in the title.
• Add {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use British English}} near the top of the article; these inform bots and spell-checkers.
• With (or The Last Judgement) consider adding a thin space   between the t and the closing parenthesis. If concerned about a line wrap due to the large image, it can be wrapped in {{nowrap}}.
• I'm a little confused about the c. 1445–1450 range, which is not clarified in the body of the article. Does it indicate that the artwork was created sometime between 1445 and 1450, or that work on it began around 1445 and it was completed in 1450? Or maybe it's meant to indicate that the individual panels of the painting were completed from about 1445 to 1450? Usually we only concern ourselves with the date the work was completed. I would suggest replacing this in the lead with the more general mid-15th-century polyptych or late 1440s polyptych, and, if important, being more specific with the dates in the body of the article. If you decide to keep the c., consider using {{circa|date}} on first use in the article for a hover-over expansion (MOS:CIRCA).
• holding scales to weighs souls. → to weigh souls.
• The panel on Christ's far right shows the gates of Heaven, that to his far left the entrance to Hell. Consider adding "shows" after far left. Although most readers would assume the meaning, I feel it should be explicit and that clause should have a verb.
• equal to his Prado Deposition is Prado necessary here? Does it disambiguate from another notable work he made called Deposition?
• In the caption, where measurements are given, there should be a space between the number and the units, e.g.: 220 cm. Also, instead of the letter x between them, use a multiplication sign with ×. You could alternatively use {{convert|220|x|548|cm}} which will take care of that formatting and also convert to imperial units as: 220 cm × 548 cm (87 in × 216 in). Come to think of it, those figures should really be present in the body of the article with a citation.
• The caption is composed of two sentence fragments (there's no verb). I would suggest either rephrasing it as a sentence, or replacing the full stop with a comma and making Oil lower case.
• The caption of the second image is also an incomplete sentence and should not have a full stop (period).

Commission and hospice:

• Nicolas Rolin was appointed Chancellor of Burgundy by Philip the Good in 1422, a position he held for the next 33 years. His tenure with Philip, Duke of Burgundy, brought him great wealth The first couple times I read this, I thought it was talking about two different people named Philip. I'd get rid of ", Duke of Burgundy," which isn't necessary, as he isn't central to the subject. Or if you think it's important, move it up a sentence to Philip the Good's first mention.
• for the foundation of the Hôtel-Dieu Proper names in foreign languages do not get italics (MOS:BADITALICS). Names of buildings do not get italics (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Titles § Neither). So this should either be capitalized non-italic as a proper name, or lower-case italic if it's a generic term in a non-English language.
• écorcheurs This is correct per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC but it is preferable to place it inside a language template for portability, as {{lang|fr|écorcheurs}}.
• I would suggest putting a non-breaking space   in Eugene IV (it'll work within the wikilink), 31 December and August 1443 (MOS:NBSP).
• the religious order of "Les sœurs hospitalières de Beaune". I don't believe the quotes are needed. If you want, you can wrap it in {{Proper name}} to keep bots and spell-checkers away from it.
• "in the interest of my salvation ... in gratitude for the goods which the Lord, source of all wealth, has heaped upon me, from now on and for always, I found a hospital." The ellipsis should be in square brackets to indicate that the quotation has been altered (MOS:ELLIPSIS), assuming this to be the case. Though presumably the charter would have been written in French. MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE recommends supplying the original untranslated text if available. The text should also make it clear that the translated quote is a translation. So something like: In the hospice's founding charter, signed in August 1443, Rolin declared "original French quote in italics", which art historian Jeffrey Chipps Smith translated as "in the interest of my salvation  in gratitude for the goods which the Lord, source of all wealth, has heaped upon me, from now on and for always, I found a hospital."
• Footnote A: Scholars are unsure where she was Rolin's second or third wife. See Lane (1989), 169 Perhaps replace where with whether.
• The altarpiece is first mentioned in a 1501 inventory That can't literally be the first mention ; it earlier states that documents of its commission survive, which would date from before 1451. Perhaps "it was first described"? Depends on sources.
• Rolin specified that 30 beds be placed within sight of the altarpiece for those too ill to walk, where it was visible to them through a pierced screen. "for those too ill to walk" breaks the flow, and makes the subject of the last clause less obvious. Suggest rephrasing as: For patients too ill to walk, Rolin specified that 30 beds be placed within sight of the altarpiece, which was visible through a pierced screen.
• There was another severe outbreak in 1441–42 Year ranges should normally be given as yyyy–yyyy. While yyyy–yy is acceptable for a two-year range, this is usually reserved to describe a period of one year or less which overlaps calendar years, such as a winter, a fiscal year, or a sports or television season. There was an RfC on this in 2016 (MOS:DATERANGE) and with the trend of where it's going you might as well go to four digits.
• Pilgrimage to Mont Saint-Michel, Normandy reached a peak around this time. Need a comma after Normandy (MOS:GEOCOMMA).
• the archangel offered ... hope that they would overcome their physical ills." as with the earlier quote, if the ellipsis is an alteration then it should be in square brackets.

Description:

• These document the possible spiritual fates of the viewers: that they might reach Heaven or Hell, salvation or damnation; stark alternatives appropriate for a hospice. I would tend to add "these were" before stark so that this last clause has a verb.
• The imagery of the outer panels is set in the earthly realm with the donors, and saints painted in grisaille to imitate sculpture. I paused on this with the comma before and, wondering if this was meant to be describing one thing or two things. Perhaps rephrase as: "The imagery of the outer panels depicts the donors in the earthly realm with the saints painted in grisaille to imitate sculpture." or "The imagery of the outer panels is set in the earthly realm with the donors knelt before the saints, who are painted in grisaille to imitate sculpture." Also, MOS:FOREIGNITALIC notes that uncommon foreign words which have not been assimilated as loan words in English should be in italics. I would tend to italicize grisaille here and elsewhere in the article.
• The high vertical central panel Perhaps "The tall central panel" or simply "The large central panel"? Also, I feel that there should be something at the beginning of the sentence to indicate that it's describing the form in general, unlike the preceding two sentences which describe the Beaune Altarpiece itself.

Inner panels:

• Similar his Braque Triptych → Similar to van der Weyden's Braque Triptych
• The celestial sphere, towards which the saved move Should there be some clarification or context for what saved means here? Perhaps there's another way to phrase it?
• The manner with which van der Weyden presents the resurrection of the dead across the five lower panels There are more than five lower panels. I think this should either: be more specific if it's important, stating which five lower panels (the five central lower panels?); or go more general by simply saying "the lower panels".

Upper register:

• Jesus sits in judgement in the upper centre panel. I think I'd prefer to see that as "Jesus Christ" on first mention, if only because he's variously mentioned as "Jesus" and "Christ" afterwards, which I'm guessing is to avoid the awkward possessive Jesus's.
• sits on a rainbow extending across two panels Is the central painting itself a panel? Ifso, then the rainbow extends across three panels. Suggest changing this to something like "sits on a rainbow which extends to the adjacent lower panels" or similar.
• would have been visible to inmates Perhaps replace inmates with "patients".
• "hypnotically attracting the viewer's glance" according to Lane. It may seem redundant, but there should be an inline citation for Lane's quote with that sentence.

Lower register:

• illuminated by long, thin rays of light and a gloomy, crowded place Remove the commas; we don't use commas to separate modifiers. Modifiers should be joined rather than separated. It would be acceptable to replace the comma with "and" but I don't feel that's needed.
• Erwin Panofsky was the first to pick up on this absence Perhaps "was the first to write of this absence" or "was the first to explore this absence"?
• "The fate of each human being ... inevitably follows as with other quotes, the ellipsis should be in square brackets if it's a modification of the quote.

Exterior panels:

• Four imitation statues in grisaille make up the inner panels. If you wish "comprise" may be more formal in tone than make up.
• The two small upper register panels This has a long string of modifiers; to make it a little easier to read, I might hyphenate "upper-register" here.
• and the colour schemes of the grisaille saints and donors contrast sharply I'd switch this around as "donors and grisaille saints" or even "the donors and the grisaille saints" so it's clear that grisaille only applies to saints.
• Jacobs writes that "the exterior presents the most consistent pictorial rendering of trompe l'oeil sculpture to date" It might be useful to provide a link to trompe-l'œil, but we don't normally like to link inside a quotation, as this can give undue emphasis to that part of the quote. Similarly, I might otherwise want to put the term in italics. One way to treat this would be to paraphrase the quote: "Jacobs writes that the exterior panels were the truest known example of trompe-l'œil sculpture." What do you think?

Inscriptions:

• Footnote C: Both inscriptions quote from Jesus' discourse on The Sheep and the Goats This should be either "Jesus's discourse" or "the discourse of Jesus" (MOS:POSS).

Condition:

• hung 3 metres (10 ft) from the ground Consider using |spell=in in {{convert}} to produce: three metres (10 ft). We generally like to write-out numbers from zero to nine (MOS:SPELL09), but to use numerals with abbreviated units.
• De Salins' panel is damaged; its colours have darkened with age; originally the niche The possessive should be De Salins's. I would probably change the first semicolon to a colon, or maybe break to a new sentence after age.

Sources and influences:

• Since before 1000 the Last Judgement had been developing as a complex subject in art Here, Last Judgement is a subject of art, not the title of an artwork, so I believe the italics are not needed. (Whereas in the nearby caption, the italics indicate that it is the title of the pictured artwork.)
• Elements of the image had gradually been added, with Saint Michael weighing the souls a late arrival, first seen in 12th-century Italy. I think I would move up a late arrival as "Elements had gradually been added to the scene, with a late arrival being Saint Michael weighing the souls, which was first depicted by artists in 12th-century Italy."
• In medieval English a wall-painting of the Last Judgement was called a doom. I'd add a comma after English, and I might italicize doom which is being discussed as a word (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style § Words as words).
• now in the Hotel de Ville, Diest, Belgium Italics not needed for a non-English proper name or the name of a building.
• van der Weyden's panels display the same sorrowful, but self-controlled dignity of his best works no comma needed here.
• The similarities between the altarpiece and the c. late 1460s Last Judgement by van der Weyden's apprentice Hans Memling has led art historians to suggest a common tie, Florentine banker Angelo Tani, gave commissions to van der Weyden before his death in 1464. Can the initial date be clarified at all? The comma after Tani isn't needed. Also, this is a bit long. I'd suggest a colon or sentence break after tie.
• from about 1493 I'd suggest "c. 1493" for consistency.

Additional notes:

• None of the images in the article had |alt= text, which I believe is required at the FA level under Misplaced Pages's accessibility mandate (WP:ACCESSIBILITY). I went ahead and added alt text rather than listing it here. Feel free to change it, keeping in mind that alt text should simply describe the image for those who can't see it clearly rather than repeating the caption text or giving context or commentary.

Feel free to use this advice or not, or to ask me if you have any questions about it. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: FYI, according to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Abbreviations widely used in Misplaced Pages, "Saint" can be abbreviated as St or St. without comment (but should be consistent throughout an article). The plural of the contraction is Sts (wiktionary), but I personally feel this should be avoided. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You are joking right? Many of these are micro improvements. "or to ask me if you have any questions about it"? Scanning also I see - "I think I'd prefer to see that as "Jesus Christ" on first mention, if only because he's variously mentioned as "Jesus" and "Christ" afterwards, which I'm guessing is to avoid the awkward possessive Jesus's" What obession with irrelevances and utter hubris. FFS. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• FA-Class visual arts articles
• WikiProject Visual arts articles
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles