The Entombment (Bouts) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 7, 2012. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Nice work, Riggr Mortis ( talk) 03:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, well done! It's such a lovely painting that it is good to see an article on it. I have just a few comments.
Amandajm ( talk) 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
There is some repetition in the Condition section. See first three paragraphs there; "it is the best preserved work of its type" is said twice, among other things. Riggr Mortis ( talk) 01:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it is excellent otherwise.
Amandajm ( talk) 04:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry guys but I now have no idea who painted this, and I have barely an idea what this section is saying. Art historian Lorne Campbell proposed in 1998 that the whole work, a polyptych, comprised a large central crucifixion scene with two works half its length and width positioned at either side – a format similar to Bouts' c. 1464–67 Altar of Holy Sacrament, which is the same size? Is the polyptich as illustrated complete? Is it missing 4 sections? 2 sections? I don't get it... Modernist ( talk) 13:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I am about to appear very rude and critical here, but I've got to say it. It would be very nice to be able to say simply that Bouts was influenced by van der Weyden and the Miraflores Altarpiece. But this is all too simple. It presupposes tht Bouts wasn't familiar with other Depositions and the very long history of depicting them in certain ways.
1. To say that the small monochrome sculpture on the arch in the Miraflores Altarpiece informed Bout's painting is, frankly, nonsense, regardless of how well sourced that information may be.
2. With regards to the body of Jesus, I see only passing resemblance to the body painted by van der Weyden in the Miraflores Altarpiece, given that this was a common subject. The lolling head and drooping arm are standard iconography. The position of the figures are otherwise different, the figure in the van der Weyden being apparently affected by rigor mortis and the Bout's not.
3. As for that picture by Bellini, I fail to see any connection whatsoever. I can see a direct connection with the Mantegna that is reproduced on the same page as the Bellini, but not to the Bouts. What exactly does the source say? Bellini painted several pictures of the dead Christ, generally supported by angels. He had a sort of tradition, which had little to do with Bouts or van der Weyden. What is the connection? I would definitely delete the Bellini. Amandajm ( talk) 07:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
"...and an oak panel attributed to a follower of Bouts is in the Kreuzlingen, Switzerland.[15]" But Kreuzlingen is a municipality. What is "the Kreuzlingen"? -- John ( talk) 05:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Can I recommend that you removed the detail of the V.der.W deposition, as it seriously draws away from the Bouts, being more intensely coloured. Since the Bouts is the subject of the article, it needs to be examined on its own merits. Amandajm ( talk) 04:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Bringing two minor issues here from the FAC:
Not a lot more to say. As I said, a very nice article. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
They're good!
Amandajm ( talk) 02:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I've corrected the slightly garbled reference for Davies 1953. Although the title is French, the text is in English. The volume gives brief technical details of paintings in the National Gallery but was published in Antwerp by De Sikkel. Details of the Entombment are on pages 24-27 (the picture is number 27 - but Vol. 1 starts at picture number 21). Some of the details in the volume differ very slightly from those in the Wiki article: the dimensions are given as 89.9 x 74.2 cm. The article by Davies says that the body is supported by S. Joseph of Arimathea and S. Nicodemus - and that it is probably Nicodemus at Christ's feet. For the 19th century history of the painting the article cites notebooks written by Sir Charles Eastlake that are held by the NG. Aa77zz ( talk) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Amanda, I now have 3 sources mentioning the Miraflores Altarpiece pieta; Davies, Koch and Campbell, so I have to at least mention it. Note however it will be in passing. You hinted before that you might be able to grab a detail of it, um asking.... Ceoil ( talk) 17:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping to work through the rest of this & review, but now I am away for 5 days. Prob next week. Johnbod ( talk) 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Well done all!.. Modernist ( talk) 16:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, there is a new stable template that I have placed on this talk page. The purpose of this template, as explained in the documentation and in a short discussion at the village pump, is to help against article rot (the deterioration of quality that can occur in articles), and to keep a link to a stable version, which will be reliable, and not so prone to those errors, vandalism, and erroneous information that can crop up at any moment. It has no effect on the actual article, and can be upgraded/changed at any time - ideally to reflect a newer, improved stable version. This being said, if you are against using it on this talk page (some have found it intrusive), feel free to discuss or remove it - I believe that it will benefit some articles more than others, and I accept that not all will see a need for it on each article. Falconus p t c 22:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Lovely to open the computer and see this on the front page of Wiki!
Amandajm ( talk) 13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
"four wing panel works half its length ". What measurement does "length" apply to here? Would "four wing panels half its height and width" be a clearer description, if correct? Or "four hinged wing panels, each half its width" be the correct description?-- Wetman ( talk) 17:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
"documentary evidence drawn from various inventories indicates that the painting was produced on commission for export to Venice" This is opaque: must we take it on faith? What the evidence actually is, and how it's to be interpreted as "produced on commission for export to Venice" will certainly interest the Wikipedia reader.-- Wetman ( talk) 17:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Lead:
[The painting's] colours are now far darker than when it was painted; they would originally have appeared as pale and dry.
"Condition" section:
The colours would have first appeared bright and crisp, but over five-and-a-half centuries the painting has acquired layers of grey dirt which darken the tone and render the colours faint and pallid. (...) The colours as they appear today have faded from their original hues.
So which one is true? Were the colors originally bright, or were they originally pale? JudgeDeadd ( talk) 21:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a question above about the Mary's: the Three Marys are Mary Salome, Mary Cleophas, Mary Magdalene. "The Three Marys" doesn't include Mary the Mother of Jesus. Amandajm ( talk) 01:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Entombment (Bouts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, editors. I tremble to dare this on a notable page, but I’d like to drop in about 2,000 bytes of new items, in order to revise and extend the good work done over the last dozen years. A few passages left me confused on first reading. If it’s all right, I’d aim for:
With your agreement, I’ll work this up in a sandbox page, at /info/en/?search=User:Johannes_der_Taucher/BoutsEntombmentSec1 and then move sections into the exisiting page. I’m new at much of this sort of editing practise, so please do edit, revert, or advise as needed.
Many thanks to anyone checking here. Johannes der Taucher ( talk) 22:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The Entombment (Bouts) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 7, 2012. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Nice work, Riggr Mortis ( talk) 03:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, well done! It's such a lovely painting that it is good to see an article on it. I have just a few comments.
Amandajm ( talk) 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
There is some repetition in the Condition section. See first three paragraphs there; "it is the best preserved work of its type" is said twice, among other things. Riggr Mortis ( talk) 01:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it is excellent otherwise.
Amandajm ( talk) 04:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry guys but I now have no idea who painted this, and I have barely an idea what this section is saying. Art historian Lorne Campbell proposed in 1998 that the whole work, a polyptych, comprised a large central crucifixion scene with two works half its length and width positioned at either side – a format similar to Bouts' c. 1464–67 Altar of Holy Sacrament, which is the same size? Is the polyptich as illustrated complete? Is it missing 4 sections? 2 sections? I don't get it... Modernist ( talk) 13:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I am about to appear very rude and critical here, but I've got to say it. It would be very nice to be able to say simply that Bouts was influenced by van der Weyden and the Miraflores Altarpiece. But this is all too simple. It presupposes tht Bouts wasn't familiar with other Depositions and the very long history of depicting them in certain ways.
1. To say that the small monochrome sculpture on the arch in the Miraflores Altarpiece informed Bout's painting is, frankly, nonsense, regardless of how well sourced that information may be.
2. With regards to the body of Jesus, I see only passing resemblance to the body painted by van der Weyden in the Miraflores Altarpiece, given that this was a common subject. The lolling head and drooping arm are standard iconography. The position of the figures are otherwise different, the figure in the van der Weyden being apparently affected by rigor mortis and the Bout's not.
3. As for that picture by Bellini, I fail to see any connection whatsoever. I can see a direct connection with the Mantegna that is reproduced on the same page as the Bellini, but not to the Bouts. What exactly does the source say? Bellini painted several pictures of the dead Christ, generally supported by angels. He had a sort of tradition, which had little to do with Bouts or van der Weyden. What is the connection? I would definitely delete the Bellini. Amandajm ( talk) 07:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
"...and an oak panel attributed to a follower of Bouts is in the Kreuzlingen, Switzerland.[15]" But Kreuzlingen is a municipality. What is "the Kreuzlingen"? -- John ( talk) 05:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Can I recommend that you removed the detail of the V.der.W deposition, as it seriously draws away from the Bouts, being more intensely coloured. Since the Bouts is the subject of the article, it needs to be examined on its own merits. Amandajm ( talk) 04:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Bringing two minor issues here from the FAC:
Not a lot more to say. As I said, a very nice article. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
They're good!
Amandajm ( talk) 02:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I've corrected the slightly garbled reference for Davies 1953. Although the title is French, the text is in English. The volume gives brief technical details of paintings in the National Gallery but was published in Antwerp by De Sikkel. Details of the Entombment are on pages 24-27 (the picture is number 27 - but Vol. 1 starts at picture number 21). Some of the details in the volume differ very slightly from those in the Wiki article: the dimensions are given as 89.9 x 74.2 cm. The article by Davies says that the body is supported by S. Joseph of Arimathea and S. Nicodemus - and that it is probably Nicodemus at Christ's feet. For the 19th century history of the painting the article cites notebooks written by Sir Charles Eastlake that are held by the NG. Aa77zz ( talk) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Amanda, I now have 3 sources mentioning the Miraflores Altarpiece pieta; Davies, Koch and Campbell, so I have to at least mention it. Note however it will be in passing. You hinted before that you might be able to grab a detail of it, um asking.... Ceoil ( talk) 17:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping to work through the rest of this & review, but now I am away for 5 days. Prob next week. Johnbod ( talk) 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Well done all!.. Modernist ( talk) 16:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, there is a new stable template that I have placed on this talk page. The purpose of this template, as explained in the documentation and in a short discussion at the village pump, is to help against article rot (the deterioration of quality that can occur in articles), and to keep a link to a stable version, which will be reliable, and not so prone to those errors, vandalism, and erroneous information that can crop up at any moment. It has no effect on the actual article, and can be upgraded/changed at any time - ideally to reflect a newer, improved stable version. This being said, if you are against using it on this talk page (some have found it intrusive), feel free to discuss or remove it - I believe that it will benefit some articles more than others, and I accept that not all will see a need for it on each article. Falconus p t c 22:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Lovely to open the computer and see this on the front page of Wiki!
Amandajm ( talk) 13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
"four wing panel works half its length ". What measurement does "length" apply to here? Would "four wing panels half its height and width" be a clearer description, if correct? Or "four hinged wing panels, each half its width" be the correct description?-- Wetman ( talk) 17:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
"documentary evidence drawn from various inventories indicates that the painting was produced on commission for export to Venice" This is opaque: must we take it on faith? What the evidence actually is, and how it's to be interpreted as "produced on commission for export to Venice" will certainly interest the Wikipedia reader.-- Wetman ( talk) 17:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Lead:
[The painting's] colours are now far darker than when it was painted; they would originally have appeared as pale and dry.
"Condition" section:
The colours would have first appeared bright and crisp, but over five-and-a-half centuries the painting has acquired layers of grey dirt which darken the tone and render the colours faint and pallid. (...) The colours as they appear today have faded from their original hues.
So which one is true? Were the colors originally bright, or were they originally pale? JudgeDeadd ( talk) 21:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a question above about the Mary's: the Three Marys are Mary Salome, Mary Cleophas, Mary Magdalene. "The Three Marys" doesn't include Mary the Mother of Jesus. Amandajm ( talk) 01:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Entombment (Bouts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, editors. I tremble to dare this on a notable page, but I’d like to drop in about 2,000 bytes of new items, in order to revise and extend the good work done over the last dozen years. A few passages left me confused on first reading. If it’s all right, I’d aim for:
With your agreement, I’ll work this up in a sandbox page, at /info/en/?search=User:Johannes_der_Taucher/BoutsEntombmentSec1 and then move sections into the exisiting page. I’m new at much of this sort of editing practise, so please do edit, revert, or advise as needed.
Many thanks to anyone checking here. Johannes der Taucher ( talk) 22:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)