Talk:Fra Carnevale

Untitled

1) Christiansen, Keith, and George Bisacca. From Filippo Lippi to Piero Della Francesca: Fra Carnevale and the Making of a Renaissance Master. New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005. Print. 2) Boskovits, Miklós. Italian Paintings of the Fifteenth Century. Washington: National Gallery of Art, 2003. Print. 3) Christiansen, Keith, and George Bisacca. From Filippo Lippi to Piero Della Francesca: Fra Carnevale and the Making of a Renaissance Master. New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005. Print. 4) Joannides, Paul. “A PORTRAIT BY FRA CARNEVALE.” Source: Notes in the History of Art, vol. 8, no. 3, 1989, pp. 7–10., www.jstor.org/stable/23202682. 5) “Still enigmatic; Fra Carnevale.” The Economist 11 Dec. 004: 82 (US) General Reference Center GOLD. Web. 20 Feb. 2017 6) Christiansen, Keith. “A Drawing for Fra Carnevale.” Master Drawings, vol. 31, no. 4, 1993, pp. 363–367., www.jstor.org/stable/1554082. 7) Books and arts: Still enigmatic; fra carnevale. (2004, Dec 11). The Economist, 373, 86. 8) Joannides, Paul. “A PORTRAIT BY FRA CARNEVALE.” Source: Notes in the History of Art, vol. 8, no. 3, 1989, pp. 7–10 9) Richter, George M. "REHABILITATION OF FRA CARNEVALE." Art Quarterly, vol. 3, 1940, pp. 311 10) Wehle, Harry B. “A Painting Attributed to Fra Carnevale.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, vol. 31, no. 3, 1936, pp. 59–66., www.jstor.org/stable/3256635. 11) “Front Matter.” Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, vol. 35, no. 210, 1937, pp. 45–45., www.jstor.org/stable/4170635. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csh8896 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Csh8896. Peer reviewers: Walcoh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

Organization: Organization of the article so far seems very good, the sections are clear and helpful.
Sources: Some of the sources where people are quoted or referenced are a bit abrupt. It would help to explain who some people are, for example when you say "Lomazzo recorded Carnevale as an architect", including a link to Lomazzo if he has an article or giving a description of his relevance would help. Who is Farquhar in the Historical section? Try not to have direct quotes at all, as it's not encyclopedic. Some sources are a bit vague, for example when in the Historical Background section you say "from records we know", clarify what records you are referencing. Walcoh (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Language: There are some areas where the language is not encyclopedic. If you use subjective language just be careful to attribute it. Phrase subjective terms like "some art historians debate" or "so and so believes", so they aren't attributed to the author of the wikipedia article.
Pictures: If you can find more pictures to add to your descriptions, such as of his drawings of people, especially works which are in museums and should have photos online, it would help illustrate his artistic style better than just describing them in words. Some of the artists in this project don't have publicly available photos of their works though, so if you can't find any that's understandable.
Information: The Paintings and Drawings sections are fairly developed though can always use more. The Influences section and Biography part of the Historical Background section could use more depth. Over all the structure is good, just continue to add more informationWalcoh (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Looks pretty decent to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)