Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Entombment (Bouts)/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 [1].

---

The Entombment (Bouts)

• Featured article candidates/The Entombment (Bouts)/archive1

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Truthkeeper88

Mid 1450s (probably) highly emotive but utterly bleak and sorrowful linen cloth painting by Dirk Bouts. I saw it during a visit to London last April and it has haunted me since. Sourcing the page has been difficult to say the least but I hope ok-ish. Thanks esp to Amandajm for much needed guidance, insight and expertise. Very helpful PR from Brianboulton here. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support (following the comments and discussion below). Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments (first set of comments are on this version (05:03, 24 October 2011); second set of comments are on this version (07:06, 5 November 2011))

Several comments, mostly minor. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Lead says "glue tempera" (first sentence) and the image caption (and the last paragraph of the lead section) says "Glue size". Even if technically correct, this could be confusing. The NG page for example says "The muted and translucent colours are due to the use of a glue medium applied directly to the sized linen. The effect would always have been far less brilliant than egg tempera or oils over a chalk ground on panel." But our tempera article talks mostly about egg tempera, so is glue size a form of tempera or what? Update: Since I wrote the preceding, these edits have been made to the article - but that doesn't clear up the confusion - the article now refers in various places to 'glue tempera', 'glue-size medium', 'Glue size tempera' and 'glue size'. The confusion arises from 'tempera' sometimes being used interchangeably with 'egg tempera', and our article on tempera doesn't really help clear up such confusion. I would work out a clear way of handling this and stick to it throughout the article. Also, the source cited says 'Glue tempera on linen', but only on the key facts page. The front page actually cited only says 'glue medium'. Updated at 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• The cloth on which the painting was painted was treated with an animal based glue to prevent the paint from seeping through - it was sized with glue. The paint used was water soluble tempera. The technique, referred to in German as tűchlein, is glue-sized, because the sizing allows the tempera to be used, but this does need some clarification. Am thinking about how to word it properly and am working my way through a more technical source to be used, which refers to it as a glue-based medium. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Update: apparently the medium (paint) was mixed with glue (binder) and the cloth treated (sized) with glue. From what I've seen the terminology appears to differ, but from the source I have regarding technique, I belief that our description is correct. It is confusing. Will leave it to Ceoil to clarify more if necessary. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think we need a seperate article on glue-sizing, I have enough sources, might have a stab later. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• article not posted, but the terminology is more standardisted now and the lead descriptor reads "soft tempera" which is at least mentioned in the tempera article. I do think though, that this article cannot be held accountable for confusion in linked articles. Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• we have worked up a (much deliberated) section on technique which we think is fairly clear. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• It has improved, but I'm not striking this point as the piped link of soft tempera to distemper (paint) threw me a bit (actually a lot). I know this article can't be judged on other articles, but you are linking to them and I fear readers will first read the distemper article (which says "The National Gallery, London distinguishes between the techniques of glue, glue size, or glue-tempera, which is how they describe their three Andrea Mantegnas in the medium, and distemper, which is how they describe their Dirk Bouts and two Edouard Vuillards.") and then they will read this article (which talks about glue sizing and tempera) and they will get confused (I know I still am). I don't have any good suggestions, but hopefully someone will.

  Though on re-reading the distemper article and the technical section in this article, I think I see one further point that might need explaining. At the distemper article, it says "Distemper is an early form of whitewash, also used as a medium for artistic painting, usually made from powdered chalk or lime and size (a gelatinous substance). Alternatives to chalk include the toxic substance, white lead." In this article it says "The whites are mainly chalk mixed with lead white", but it also says (later on) "there is an underlayer of white chalk mixed with white lead" (some of which was "left exposed in some areas" to form some of the white areas). So my question now is whether the entire linen sheet (after some poor sod spent ages weaving it) was: (i) treated with glue; and then (ii) covered entirely with this underlayer of white chalk mixed with white lead; and then (iii) the paint pigments mixed with a glue binder were then applied over this underlayer (leaving white bits exposed or adding more white if needed)? If so (and please don't assume I've got it right), there must be an easier way to say that in plain English. At the least, if there was a complete underlayer applied, the technique section needs to mention this - currently it only mentions an 'under-paint' without explaining that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have this, and can expand. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'm happy to remove the link to distemper if it's causing confusion because most of the sources refer to the paint as tempera. That said, I have found sources that are more technical and describe the paint as distemper. I've sent these on the Ceoil, and he can decide how to proceed. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. The new article on glue-size helps a lot. I hope someone will at some point try and make all these articles consistent, but that is more than enough for this FAC. Possibly removing or reducing the number of links later on, from this article to sizing, would help guide readers towards the glue-size article instead. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• The link in the lead section to an image is slightly jarring (I see it was added following a comment made at the peer review) - I'm of the view that this use of an external link tends to surprise readers and that is usually a bad thing. I would personally put a link to the image in a footnote, or direct readers to the image in the gallery at the end of the article, rather than sending them off to an image page on Commons. (actioned)

• Not pushed either way, but seeing that the work is reporduced in the gallery, in this instance the ext link should prob go. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Venetian and patron are common enough to not really need linking, certainly not in the lead (and in the next sentence, Milan is not linked, so the linking is inconsistent). Linking purely to allow people to find out that a Venetian is from Venice isn't really a good use of a link either). (actioned)

• Removed patron; left Venetian and Milan. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The bit about "muted colours" in the lead seems to jar with "Its colours are now far duller than they once would have been." Does "muted colours" refer to the original colours or the present colours? (actioned)

• Clarified. The colours of the figures would have been opaque and "dry" origionally but have since darkened from the accumulated films of dirt. The muted equally refers to the restrained conveyance of the figure's expressions, and that idea is reflected in the dour, spare colourisation. If this is not clear I can expand. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• "The paint seems to have been thinly applied on the Z-spun and tabby linen thread support" - this is a bit jargon-heavy. Is it possible to explain a bit within the article what this means, rather than relying on links? The selvage, stretcher and warp and weft links in this paragraph are similarly daunting if the reader is not familiar with these terms. I suspect the majority of readers here will either skip past this without really understanding it, or will spend lots of time clicking back-and-forth to other articles to try and understand it, which will disrupt the flow of the article for those readers (the colours paragraph, in contrast, is easier to skim as from the context it is obvious that these are colours). (seems OK now)

• I've reworked this section and trimmed a bit. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been quite an amount of deliberation about this, with people mind who have clue about it (TK and Amanda); wheather it was too technical and eye glazing or not. The end result is a sub section with the more obscure bits and pieces now in the notes. Ceoil (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• The first mention of Campbell is a bit abrupt. What I'd do here is introduce Campbell first as "art historian" or whatever Campbell's role as commentator here is. You do this later for "art historian Susan Jones", and you also do it later for Campbell when you say "Art historian Lorne Campbell". (actioned)

• Moved the first introduction to Campbell. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Lamentation of Christ image caption makes a claim that should be sourced and/or mentioned in the main body of the article. (n/a - now removed)

Its obvious but claim removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• "The work had been lined and restretched" - it's not clear what "lined" means here. (deferring on this)

• Clarified I hope. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm still not entirely clear. When a linen painting is "lined", is this the process of adding an inner (or underlying) lining as you do with a garment such as a coat, as described at lining (sewing), or is this something different? Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• All the sources I have access to simply use the word lined or lining without elaboration. Presumably this was done because of paint seepage through the linen. Am happy to link to lining (sewing) if that would make it more clear, although I doubt it was done to cover or hide seams as is the reason for lining a garment. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I found this paper (from the Tate) on what lining means in this case. It seems it was a way of reinforcing/restoring the existing canvas. It sounds fascinating, but like the stuff about the medium, not really something to worry about too much. I think a link to the 'lining (sewing)' article would be wrong in this case, as it looks like this is something different. Maybe someone will write lining (painting) at some point? Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are there sources that tell us what Adoration of the Kings shows? (fair enough)

Yes, the Koch journal entry covers it in detail, but it might be off topic here. I could give an easter egg to Adoration of the Magi in the painting title, but dont really want to. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it is obvious really (that is what I had guessed). It is something I'd explain in a footnote, only because there is no picture of it (unlike the other two), but it's up to you. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• There is one instance of the spelling "centre" and a few of the spelling "center". (actioned)

• Have made this consistent. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• This bit: "The influence of the Miraflores Altarpiece can be seen in the representation of Christ's dead body, while a relief in the architecture of van der Weyden's center panel informed the positioning of Bouts' mourners." appears to repeat this bit: "The figuration and pose in The Entombment is probably informed by a relief seen in the arch of the central panel of van der Weyden's Miraflores Altarpiece." (actioned)

• Removed one of the sentences. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The article says the Miraflores Altarpiece is 1440s, while the gallery caption says "c 1440", which is not the same thing. Similarly, for Altar of Holy Sacrament the article says "c. 1464–67", while the gallery caption says "1464–67". The Transfiguration of Christ gallery caption is missing the year. (actioned)

• Yeah, and the important fact was that it was 'after' 1440. Fixed re altarpiece, Transfiguration of Christ removed. Ceoil (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Missed one. The lead still says: "Bouts' 1464–6 Altar of the Holy Sacrament". That not only misses out the "circa" but also gives a different end year for the range (and is not consistent either - it should be '1464-67' or '1464-66'). Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• On this last point, I made this edit, and am noting here so that the nominators can correct it if that is wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• When you say "The Guicciardi collection contained at least three other similar works", does this refer to the earlier bit where Eastlake is "made aware of three companion pieces"? In the earlier section, you name these companion pieces, but in the later section you are more vague, which confused me as it is not clear if you are talking about something different here, or the same thing. (taking this to the article talk page)

• Yes, it is referring to the same thing. I've tried to tweak the wording without repeating the earlier sentence and introducing more repetition. Hopefully it's more clear now. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Still not clear. I think you need to name the three pieces again further down to make it clearer. There is also inconsistency in that the earlier section says 'He was made aware of three companion pieces, but told they were not on the market and so was not allowed to view them' versus 'Their tone and size were similar to The Entombment, suggesting that they were most likely pieces that would have formed part of the larger polyptych'. The first sentence seems to say they definitely were the companion piece, while the second sentence equivocates with the terms 'suggesting' and 'most likely'. You seem to have one source saying these are the companion pieces, and another source being less sure about it. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Another slight problem, but not really necessary to drag this point out at FAC - taking to article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• The external link to "Other works on permanent display in room 63 at the NG" seems gratuitous - readers can reach that page with one click from the more relevant link you already provide. It is fine to have just one external link. If you do keep it, you need to expand or explain the NG abbreviation. (actioned, and now removed in any case)

• I included as I though the other painting in the room gave context, but have removed for now, undecided. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• In the further reading section, the "Roy, Ashok. National Gallery Technical Bulletin. Volume 8, 1984" entry is a bit opaque. What is it within that bulletin that you are suggesting readers look at? The whole bulletin? Does the article by Ashok not have a title or did he write the whole bulletin? (removed)

• Removed for now. Ashok was the editor at the time, the article appears in the biblo of a source I'd been using and looked interesting though I dont have a copy of it, I though it might be handy in the further reading section at least. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• OK, though I see now that you have something there instead from 2 years later. My view on further reading is that it is best really to have read, accessed, or at least flipped through the work you are pointing readers towards, as otherwise you risk sending them to something that doesn't exist (if you give the wrong reference) or something that is not very good. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Fair point. I can stand over the two that are in the section now. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• You have a reference to "van Veen, 297", but the work appears to be Borchert, unless you are referring to another work that is not given in the bibliographic listing (you later cite "Borchert, 203"). Also, one of your sources is: "Johnson, Charles. The Language of Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1949", but this is not used for any of the inline cites. Also, is there no author or article title information for "National Gallery technical bulletin, Volume 18, 1997. 25"? (partially done)

• I've fixed almost all of these. Can't find an author for the Technical Bulletin, but will leave it to Ceoil to confirm. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• One bit not done here. Only a minor matter, but flagging it up here anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To finish, I'd like to echo Brian's comment at the PR: "I enjoy paintings articles, and always like to review them when I can find time". This article was a pleasure and a joy to read. Will check back in a few days and likely add my support then. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Very good comments - thank you. Will take a couple of days to get through these. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've fixed what I can - those I haven't responded to need sources that Ceoil has, so am waiting for his feedback. Thanks again for the review. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth thanks for the detailed review, very helpful and very welcome. Sorry for the tardy responce, something came up at work and I haven't been able to give the article any attention during the week. I do appreciate the time you spent. Ceoil (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope what I've struck and replied to above is clear. I'll check back at the end of the weekend, and apologies for taking so long to get back to this one. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Noting here (and above) that based on the comments and discussion, am happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. More importantly, thanks for the time and giving us an in-depth review, which has resulted in a substantially improved article. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• "the majority extant today were executed on wood using oil or egg tempera." - source?
• "This low framing protected a portion of the canvas from deterioration and allows us to see some of the colours as they would have appeared originally." - source?
• Missing bibliographic info for van Veen
• Full bibliographic info for Davies appears three times, and is notated differently on each appearance
• No citations to Johnson
• Is the Davies source in French? Should note this
• Use a consistent punctuation for retrieval dates
• Be consistent in whether or not your provide publisher locations
• Be consistent in whether volumes are notated in Roman or Arabic numerals
• National Gallery technical bulletin or National Gallery Technical Bulletin or The National Gallery Technical Bulletin? Check for consistency
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Nikkimaria. Working through these. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Except for the two uncited sentences, I've fixed these. I think the uncited sentence are probably referenced in the next cite, but will wait for Ceoil to confirm. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

All sorted now,. Though I admit I'm confused as to how to format pub locs for journals and might need guidance and a hand. Ceoil (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to add: I don't normally add locations for journal articles, only the title of publication, unless you want them for consistency? Am a little confused myself on this one. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

They are mostly from the Nat gall so mostly London, I'd b happier without. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether you include them or not, so long as you do it consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Found one that hadn't been removed and fixed. Should be consistent now. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: I gave this a detailed peer review; the issues I raised there have been adequately addressed, with further improvements as a result of the points raised in this FAC. Maybe further fine tuning would benefit, but I am satisfied that as of now the article meets the FA criteria and I am happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, your review was of enormous help in the process. The remianing issues being discussed on the talk. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Brian. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Support - with a few minor issues:

• I saw "dates it to between 1450-55", I think the en dash should be "and".
• There are two occurrences of "the the". (one "the The" and one "the the").
• I saw "an usual".
• Should this be dirt, "Note the layer of dirth across the midground"?
• There is a "Bouts's" in the sources, whereas "Bouts'" is used in the text. But perhaps, we can't do anything about this.

Thanks for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta Graham, fixed all but two; 1450-55 vs 1450 and 1455 reads better to me; and I'd say the source using "Bouts's" are fairly dated. The others were typos introduced yesterday; TK usually watches my back on these. Thanks again the look is appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

But there is "completed between 1440 and 1455" in the Lead, which is correct; and "between 1450–55" further down, which is not. The Manual of Style says, "Do not mix en dashes with prepositions like between and from". I agree with this because to me it reads between 1450 to 55, which sounds odd to my ears. Graham Colm (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've changed to "between 1440 and 1455" because I prefer it that way, and per MoS and your suggestion. Ceoil is overruled here. Thanks btw for reading, the comments and the support. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm anally retentive. Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That would make two of us. I'll go through and make it as consistent as possible because now it's a little off. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Lots of improvement, and impressive work so far...Modernist (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks Modernist for reading and for the support. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks Modernist for the support and edits. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The article still needs an image review. Ucucha (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha. They're all centuries old; I'll leave it to Ceoil to find an image reviewer. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

8 images, none post 1500. All pd:old and pd:art, all attribute source, holding gallery etc. No deritives, or showing frame etc. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead mentions it was purchased for the National Gallery by Eastland, but a reader digging in to the text at this point doesn't find any mention of the National Gallery:

• Charles Eastlake purchased the painting for just over £120 in 1860 in Milan. During a period of aggressive acquisition intended to establish the international prestige of Britain's collection, it was acquired along with a number of other Netherlandish works from the Guicciardi family.

which makes that part hard to follow until one remembers (from the lead) that it was purchased for the National Gallery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC) There's an inconsistency in hyphenation of glue-size, not accounted for by whether it's modifying a noun. IN the lead we find "It is one of the few surviving 15th-century paintings created using glue-size, an ... ", but later in the text we found it used similarly without a hyphen-- pls review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting. Fixed both of these. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.