Talk:Beaune Altarpiece

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,[46] 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 [leaps onto broomstick, cackles, and sweeps away]. 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

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 ^Talk 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 ^(talk) 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)

File:Beaune Altarpiece 1.jpg

Usual browser window size

File:Beune Altarpiece 2.jpg

Larger size

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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)

large screen

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 [1]. 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 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2856699 this (actually the previous item, top p 291). Worth a mention maybe. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 (Wikipedia:Short description). I would suggest using "15th-century Netherlandish artwork". I used artwork since altarpiece is already in the title.
  •  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Changed to "painting". Aspirant copyeditors please note: singular "artwork" is ALMOST NEVER THE BEST WORD TO USE, especially in British English. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Add {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use British English}} near the top of the article; these inform bots and spell-checkers.
  •  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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}}.
  •  Not done I am uncomfortable with the large image; this is a matter of editor choice.
• 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).
  •  Not done, leaving to those who have sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
    • I spent a lot of time replacing the simple c. for circa that we usually use when writing about 500 year old art only to see it's been done wrong. The crux of the issue is that there's no way of knowing in 2019 or 2020 when exactly the work began, how long it took and when it was finished. We know more about this piece than many others, but we have to hedge. We can't claim something in Wikipedia's voice that may or may not be correct: ie., the work was definitely started in 1445 exactly and finished 1450 exactly. Pinging Johnbod to explain better the concept of "circa" when writing about art if there are questions. I don't care how "circa" is presented in the text. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, leave it. Obviously, we don't know, & the suggestions are not better. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
        • You've neglected to clarify the intended meaning or what the sources say. I don't believe I suggested that the article stray from sources. FYI, c. 1445–1450 literally means "from about 1445 until 1450". If you mean to say "from about 1445 until about 1450" then that would be c. 1445 – c. 1450. The bigger issue, which I didn't want to get into without a better understanding of the intention, is how the reader is to interpret that bare range. I looked at the lead of 22 similar articles from the category; only 2 of them (a stub and short article, both with cleanup tags) gave a range like that without explanation. All of the others gave some sort of explanation where a year range was used, and most also did so when a single year was used – explaining if this was the commission, completion or delivery year. Clarity is important; not every reader is going to make the same assumptions you do. As it seems that there is some uncertainty regarding these dates, I strongly suggest that they be discussed in the body of the article. And my original suggestion still stands: if you can't be specific, be general. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• holding scales to weighs souls. → to weigh souls.
  •  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Done, changed "that" to "and" to avoid suggestion that would repetitiously use the word "shows" twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• equal to his Prado Deposition is Prado necessary here? Does it disambiguate from another notable work he made called Deposition?
  •  Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • It's a bit awkward but typically medieval pieces of art or altarpieces don't actually have titles, they are objects, and usually identified by their location. In this case van der Weyden's Desposition is in the Prado: that's the typical identifier. Again Johnbod might be able to explain better than I can. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • There are various other Depositions by/attributed to Weyden or his workshop/circle - here's beach sheet featuring one of them. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that would be useful even if it was the only one. Economic writing is fine, but there's no reason to be economic with information. Yomangani^talk 02:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I usually like modifiers to provide more clarity or specificity, and here I'm concerned that Prado might cause more confusion that it relieves. This is the lead paragraph and you'll have a lot of general readers who are unlikely to know the intended meaning of Prado here. I also note that this is another place where the lead states something which is not discussed in the body of the article; it's pretty basic layout for the lead to summarize the article, not for it to contain random facts that didn't fit elsewhere in the article. This really ought to be rectified. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Partly done Convert template added, not added to body. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Then the article needs an inline citation in the caption (do I really need to state this?). – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Not done, discretion of the FA writer. (I am uncomfortable with large images in leads, but others should decide this.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This is standard for artworks (and not just here). Not worth bothering about. Yomangani^talk 02:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    • The semi-colon is good, thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• The caption of the second image is also an incomplete sentence and should not have a full stop (period).
  •  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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.
  •  Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I rephrased this a few days ago to add the link to Duke of Burgundy. Yes, the current phrasing is awkward, but Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy violates WP:SEAOFBLUE. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • To avoid overlinking in a case like that, link only to the most-specific article, Philip the Good. The lead sentence of that article links to Duke of Burgundy, so it's easy to follow from one to the other, if the reader decides they need more general background on the specific person. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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 (Wikipedia: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.
  •  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• écorcheurs This is correct per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC but it is preferable to place it inside a language template for portability, as {{lang|fr|écorcheurs}}.
  •  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• I would suggest putting a non-breaking space   in Eugene IV (it'll work within the wikilink), 31 December and August 1443 (MOS:NBSP).
  •  Partly done, added an NBSP to Eugene, not going there on the use of NBSP on dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• "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."
  •  Not done, sources needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The ellipsis does not have to be in square brackets. According to MOS:ELLIPSIS, "Occasionally, square brackets are placed around an ellipsis" (my emphasis). It is editorial judgement, not a "must do". - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • None of the style guides I have, and my job requires that I keep up to date with many, have required brackets around ellipsis for 10 to 15 years. What few people are aware of is that the proper use of ellipsis is to use three dots to indicate words were left out of a sentence and four dots to indicate that an entire sentence was skipped. Generally it's not a good idea to skip a sentence but sometimes for the sake of brevity it's possible, so some of the articles I've written do use four dots. Of course they always get changed, but I really do know this stuff as it happens. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Without the sources I can only guess here. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia's situation can be more complex. There's an open discussion at MOS talk on some of the issues, rare as they may be. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Footnote A: Scholars are unsure where she was Rolin's second or third wife. See Lane (1989), 169 Perhaps replace where with whether.
  •  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• The altarpiece is first mentioned in a 1501 inventory That can't literally be the first mention [in the historical record]; it earlier states that documents of its commission survive, which would date from before 1451. Perhaps "it was first described"? Depends on sources.
  •  Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Here's what the source says:

      Roger van der Weyden's Last Judgment is one of the rare Early Netherlandish paintings whose artist, original location, date and patron are all reasonably certain .... [It] is universally accepted as the painting described in an inventory of 1501

      . I think we got it right. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I accept that the inventory describes the painting, but I don't actually see where the source says that was its first mention. We need a reliable source to say that the 1501 inventory was the first mention, or otherwise rephrase. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Rolin specified that 30 beds be placed within sight of the altarpiece for those too ill to walk,[16] 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.
  •  Partly done, see WP:MEDMOS, we do not refer to people as "patients". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Interesting. By definition, doesn't MEDMOS apply only to medical-related articles? I feel that we're safe in this context; we aren't writing for patients or healthcare professionals, who are unlikely to be coming here for medical advice. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Done (but this is really stupid). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Pilgrimage to Mont Saint-Michel, Normandy reached a peak around this time. Need a comma after Normandy (MOS:GEOCOMMA).
  •  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • As with the earlier answer, please assume good faith that the writers are not snipping out large amounts of text to make a point. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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.
  • There are engvar differences in the usage of colons, semicolon and commas. Not messing with this. Makes sense to me. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure about WP:ENGVAR in that case. I usually like to simplify sentence structure so it's easier to read, but it's fine. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• 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.
  • I'm comma dyslexic (seriously). Will take a look. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    • My concern with the current phrasing The imagery of the outer panels is set in the earthly realm with the donors and saints painted in grisaille to imitate sculpture. is that it might be read as both the donors and saints are painted in grisaille, whereas I believe this is only for the saints. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• 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.
  • Just rephrased that a few days ago. The point is that the central panel is vertical from top to bottom and spans two registers whereas the other panels don't. Maybe this something Johnbod or Yomangani can explain better than I can. The altarpiece is meant to look like a cross. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I think it is a bit confusing because it ends up discussing the cross in The Descent from the Cross which isn't really relevant here. I've rephrased it but it feels a bit limited with only three options of what they can depict on the shutters. Yomangani^talk 02:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
      • It is confusing because I've squashed a huge amount of information into a few sentences and not done it well. I've been tempted to cut the entire paragraph but took another look at the source, link, and it seems important so I took another stab at it. I kept the Deposition in because it's more noticeable in that piece, for people who click the link, but if anyone thinks all of this can be snipped out I'm fine with that option too. Victoria (tk) 04:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I appreciate the rewrite, I feel it reads better. Oh: the polyptych resemble an upside-down cross → resembles– Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I did not do any of this section: all of this is best left to the original writer, some of it is debateable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Inner panels:

• Similar his Braque Triptych → Similar to van der Weyden's Braque Triptych
  •  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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?
  •  Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Saved is saved; damned is damned. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I was just wondering if a non-Christian reading this purely for interest in the art would understand this on first mention. Could link saved to salvation on first mention, but probably not needed. It might be more useful to link resurrection of the dead further down. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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".
  •  Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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.
  •  Done But this is debateable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Indeed it is - technically Christ is only Jesus during his earthly life, as far as the Catholic & Orthodox churches are concerned. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I took that out before I saw this. Really not necessary to spell out which Christ or Jesus we mean. Yomangani^talk 02:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• would have been visible to inmates Perhaps replace inmates with "patients".
  •  Partly done, avoid use of "patients", see WP:MEDMOS, visible to anyone = individuals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• "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.
  •  Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Probably not necessary if the citation comes right at the end of the sentence but will take a look. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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.
  •  Not done, Ceoil and Victoria are better writers than I am, and I don't follow comma stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Will take a look, but not really convinced. Obviously "long and thin" is what a book will say, but it is okay to do it this way too. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • The comma separation works if they're taken as coordinate adjectives. Not sure if it literally makes sense that way, but I won't argue it further. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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"?
  •  Not done sources needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Don't have Panofsky. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • "mention" sounds like what I'd put. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Sounds good to me. "pick up on" is not great encyclopedic tone. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• "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.
  •  Not done, sources needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Please trust the ellipsis haven't been used to push a point of view, etc. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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.
  •  Not done disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Will take a look; hyphenation is required if a noun is being modified. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't say it's a must; there isn't a lot of ambiguity in context. But I feel it becomes a little easier to read and a compound modifier helps to avoid a small pause by the reader. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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?
  •  Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • No. We don't link in a quotation and we don't modify a quotation to satisfy Wikipedia MoS. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Sorry, those quotation marks were meant to separate my suggested text from the surrounding text (i.e.: do not include those quotation marks). It is a paraphrasing, and not to be presented as a quotation. Wikipedia encourages paraphrasing. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

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).
  •  Partly done, please check.[2] Per a related comment in another section above, I switched "Jesus" to "Christ" to avoid the s's.

    Separately, I am unsure if ALL CAPS should be reduced in the inscriptions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  • MOS:CONFORM says that a quote in ALL CAPS should be normalized to plain text. I can see situations where it would be desirable to preserve the caps for discussion, but it doesn't seem necessary here. I'd say to normalize it and put it in {{lang-la}} – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

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.
  •  Done, but three vs. 10 is jarring.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Generally style guides say to write out numbers greater than eleven, but if there are smaller numbers, i.e 1,2,3, then it's best to not to be too rule bound. Rather write them all out or use numerals. We write them out, but of course the Wikipedia templates don't, whatever. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Ah but is isn't three vs 10, it's three (otherwise stated as 10). It's a parenthetic alternative, not a direct comparison (for which SPELL09 allows exceptions). Also, with abbreviated units, "Ten ft" looks weird. I don't mind if you want to go back to the way it was. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Engvar issue, I believe. Not going there. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Some style guides don't like it, but I don't believe it's a regional variation. MOS:POSS says that singular possessives get 's.

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.)
  •  Done but needs to be checked. [4] I also added a comma, which could be wrong, I am unsure if we need to remove uppercase on Last Judgement, and I added "depictions of the". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • • Yes, this is good now. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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."
  •  Not done, awkward, leave to Ceoil et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Will take a look. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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 (Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Words as words).
  •  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• now in the Hotel de Ville, Diest, Belgium Italics not needed for a non-English proper name or the name of a building.
  •  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• van der Weyden's panels display the same sorrowful, but self-controlled dignity of his best works no comma needed here.
  •  Not done, I am not good at commas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Comma dyslexic. It reads terrible to me without the comma. Will let someone smart like Yomangani fix. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Gone for the easy option as it reads terribly to me with the comma. If you don't like that solution does replacing "but" with "yet" or "but nevertheless" work? I know "nevertheless" is grammatically redundant but isn't necessarily functionally redundant if it leads the reader painlessly to where you want them. Yomangani^talk 02:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • We really don't know dates. It was a long time ago. Victoria (tk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Good rephrase. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• from about 1493 I'd suggest "c. 1493" for consistency.
  •  Done

Additional notes:

• None of the images in the article had |alt= text, which I believe is required at the FA level under Wikipedia'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.
  • It isn't needed, if only because nobody could (several years ago) what it should say or attempt to do. It tends to be rather futile in articles like this. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Abbreviations widely used in Wikipedia, "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)

@TheSandDoctor: would you like to address this trolling bear poking, or just aggravate the fucking issue? You seem very keen on the one; less so on the other. And please desist from leaving passive-aggressive notes on my talk, they are both unnecessary and unwelcome. ——SN54129 08:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Some done, others not

I will work on the useful items in this list. Some of it is useful, not all, but all of it is of the nature of nitpicking that once would have been done by many editors on mainpage day. When the FA process had a director, it was understood that engaging the community at TFA is a good way to recruit reviewers and that articles do not have to be perfect on mainpage day; if the GOCE people have the time to nitpick at this level, it would be wonderful if they participated in FAC or FAR, which is where this level of review would be more helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I have marked above all that I did and left undone: here is a diff for easy checking. I found nothing that would not likely have been adjusted at mainpage day or indicated a deficient (ala FAR) FA. The time expended here was not a good use of resources, when there are some seriously deficient FAs, promoted recently, that warrant the use of such time. Good luck to all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

PS, I am unwatching now, so ping me if needed. Seeing good FA writers in such torment is not fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I did note at the top of the L2 section that this was very nit-picky. Half of the suggestions did lead to your changing the article (check marks), so presumably you agreed that these were improvements. I hope that you will find a way of contributing to Wikipedia which you will enjoy. Happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Reidgreg I read the sentence "I hope that you will find a way of contributing to Wikipedia which you will enjoy" as referring to me, but the threading suggests it's directed at SandyGeorgia so I'm confused.

Nonetheless, no I do not agree these improvements needed to be made and I specifically asked Gog the Mild not to bring in the GOCE.

Let me be very clear: I am a woman. Tell me to jump, and I'll jump. Tell me to jump to the ninth level of hell and I'll jump there. I won't be happy about it, but I'll do. Still, this particular exercise has pushed me over the edge. It's Christmas. My family is visiting. We have a family birthday today. I'm cooking. I have a chronic illness that keeps me from editing. Yet, here I am. And frankly I'm furious.

Ceoil dealt with it his way and got blocked. If I weren't a woman I'd probably do something similar. To end with "Happy editing!" is unnecessary. I've made a few more edits to please you, but I only had time to read some of your voluminous comments, and decided not to link the many style guides re ellipses (nor do I like the idea that apparently I don't know how to quote) and on and on.

Was this a worthwhile exercise in your view? Also, because the conversation has spilled from here to my page to your page, Dank's page, various other pages (sorry, too fucking tired to start linking), pinging in everyone else to ask the same question: was this excercise worth the effort, worth having one editor blocked, worth having another retire? @TFA coordinators ?? Gog? Reidgreg?

Also, pinging Johnbod & Yomangani again re the issue w/ circa & dates (which apparently we're supposed to know exactly) the Prado issue, and anything else important or unimportant I might have missed. Over & out. Victoria (tk) 01:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It was surely aimed at me; Reidgreg would make a much better impression if they put their talents to work at, for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coropuna/archive1 instead of lobbing sarcastic comments over here while I'm trying to do some productive reviewing. Yes, Reidgreg, many of your suggestions were useful and helpful and I did as many of them as I could without sources; none of them were a good use of your talent, my talent, or Ceoil/Victoria talent. Many of the things you noted would have been dealt with on mainpage day, while Wikipedia's mainpage public would have been exposed to a pleasurable reading experience, even with some MOS issues. I don't know what you hoped to accomplish by combing through this particular article; I can show you true problems. If you want to make an example of the kinds of problems that are getting through FAC, this is not a good starting place. If you want to discourage the editors who are on the upper tail of the FAC distribution curve, you're off to a good start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"I specifically asked Gog the Mild not to bring in the GOCE." Apologies Victoria, but I am unable to find where you made this request. Perhaps you could supply a diff? I saw your "Thanks Gog the Mild for sending this to GOCE but do you mind holding off until I get a chance to run through it?" on 9 December; obviously, I immediately put the request on hold. The next day I wrote "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." and I withdrew the GOCE request on my own initiative. I also noted on the TFA copy edit summary "5 years since promotion. Two experienced nominators. IMO it could do with a copy edit. Probably best to leave this one." Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably best indeed. Enough, indeed more than enough has been done. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on Victoriaearle's concerns stated at WT:TFA (permalink), I conceded that the more diplomatic route would be to leave notes here as she suggested, so that editors with access to the sources could go over them at their leisure. (I did make one edit to the article to address accessibility.) I noted up-front that some of my notes were very nit-picky and to "Feel free to use this advice or not". I tried to be clear that I was not making demands upon anyone, and have tried to assume good faith throughout despite the vitriol directed at me. I avoid counter-productive WP:SARCASM on talk pages; if I wish someone "happy editing", I mean it. My efforts here were purely on my own initiative as just another editor. I never mentioned GOCE above and was not acting on behalf of the GOCE (which has no special authority in any case). I feel that, through combined efforts and consensus, the article is in better shape than it was and that most of the sub-FA issues have been resolved. It could have been handled more efficiently, certainly if discussions focused on the merit of edits. Given that at least one editor is furious, I'm inclined to leave this until things cool down. I sincerely wish you all the best. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

speaking as, I presume, the furious editor; some of the suggestions were very helpful and brought clarity, so all is not lost, and will be adapting a few of the templates introduced in the last week into other articles I watch. Sincerely, Reidgreg, you would be highly valued ‘’during’’ FACs. Ceoil (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

you betcha! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Current location of work

This is an almost-wonderful article on a fascinating topic. However one deficiency is apparent: the article fails to note the current location of the work - the building, town, region and country; this would seem to be basic information that should be stated in the introductory paragraph. Also worth noting might be whether the work remains in its original room and how far it has been moved - a few meters in this case, perhaps?2600:100C:B205:D8C0:0:2A:A5D7:9001 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you notice the caption on the lead image? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I still think most Wikipedia readers, including myself, don't know where Beaune is and shouldn't have to click on a link to find out; I think it should be apparent when reading the text of the article - it's basic identifying information.2600:100C:B205:D8C0:0:2A:A5D7:9001 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

location of Beaune now added to the text. 17:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Left / Right

The 2nd paragraph of the introduction says "...the panel on the far right showing the gates of Heaven, while the entrance to Hell is on the far left." I assume that means the viewer's right and left, but it's the opposite of what the viewer sees. Later in the article it is described as "...the saved to Christ's right, and those of the damned to his left" and maybe that's what the introduction means, as well, but it seems like the introduction should have the left & right swapped, or should be changed to say to Christ's right/left. Pagalloway (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added proper right & left in the lead - or they should be changed & clarified with "viewer's". Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

When "right" is used in the Bible (such as "at the right hand of God" (see Mark 16), it's not the viewer's perspective, but that should be clarified. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Mohan Kumar Searma could you please read your talk page, at User talk:Mohan Kumar Searma, and discuss your edits here on the article talk page? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Note, this was resolved. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

A note on the scales

"In a mirror image of van der Weyden's altarpiece, Memling shows the saved outweighing the damned in St Michael's scales" says the article, and in fact it shows that Memling was theologically more sound than Van der Weyden, or had a better knowledge of the Old Testament (or the person who commissioned the paining had it), because it is in conformity with Daniel 5:27, "You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting". I wonder what Rogier's reasoning was. --Edelseider (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The article says "Unusually for Christian art, the damned outweigh the blessed", "The blessed look towards Christ, the banished look downwards", and "The souls undergo a gradual transformation as they move from panel to panel. Those rising from their graves at Michael's feet show little expression, but become more animated as they move to either side; horror and desperation become especially visible on the faces of the damned as they move towards Hell" and "Traditionally, a Last Judgement painting would depict the damned tormented by malevolent spirits; yet here the souls are left alone, the only evidence of their torment in their expressions.[37]" Ceoil (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Ceoil, for taking the time to paraphrase all this, but I still wonder what Rogiers's reasoning, or more exactly his source, was. There were many philosphical and mystic currents inside of Catholicism in the Middle Ages. Bridget of Sweden, Hildegard of Bingen, Jacques de Voragine, and of course the Thomists... A simple description of what we can see does not tell us where the inspiration came from. --Edelseider (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Morning Edelse, and thanks for posing an interesting question. I wonder however if your musings are going outside the scope of this page. My quotes above are from the mostly widely regarded sources, and am hesitant to go beyond those, and into wide speculation. Note the article is supposed to be encyclopedic, rather than a personal exploratory essay. Ceoil (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)