Talk:Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

[Untitled]

There is a disconnect between the initial description and the "Description" section, notably regarding who is who. I can't fix it because I don't really know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.209.8 (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not magnified

The article currently contains the false statement that "his glasses ... enlarge the text immediately behind them on his book of prayers".(diff) Actually, the text is not magnified. See this image. Ceinturion (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ceinturion, corrected now. Ceoil (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Ceinturion (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Reminder

Jacob van Oost was commissioned to restore Jan van Eyck's famous Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele (1436) in the former Church of Saint-Donaas (now in the Groeningemuseum) in Bruges in 1632-33.[5] Ceoil (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Translation

Brine 2015 seems to be self published, but the trans is taken from Daahens, page 267, or something. Do you still have? Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have Dhanens big huge book sitting on the coffee table. No prob. Will take a look later. Victoria (tk) 21:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Structure

What's the best way to structure this? There are a lot of details, many of which have iconographic value. I was thinking we can simply describe that there's a parrot with a plant growing from its feathers, a helmet with reflections in it, and so on, in the "Panel/Figures" section, then add an iconography section to explain the symbolism. But I'm wondering if that will repetitive? We also mention the details in the "Composition" section. And I've just noticed that I've been adding repetition throughout. Thoughts? Victoriaearle (tk) 22:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

My preference is always to gather the iconography into a single section. Two reasons; I am fascinated by its development and meaning, and like the focus a dedicated sect allows. Also I like descriptions to be dry, talking the untrained reader through the elements of the painting's structure. From reading, Campbell excels here.Ceoil (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agree (though I don't have Campbell). I'll try working up the skeleton of an iconography section and then we decide whether all the details go there, or keep some sprinkled throughout elsewhere. I'm inclined toward getting them all into iconography. Will try to get back to here this evening or tomorrow. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

link cites to refs with sfn and citation templates?

Hey. Do we wanna link cites to refs with sfn and citation templates?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Images

This is a beautiful article (congrats!), but I find the images a bit distracting, either because they are too large or sandwich surrounding text too much. I tried making some adjustments, but I'm not sure they were kept. Just sharing in case others want to discuss. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You also pointedly introduced an inbox, following disputes, and an FAC edit war, over Bacon micro stubs, which lead to a loss of credibility and interest in any other edits you have made. Ceoil (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The first paragraph states that this is painted on an oak panel. The very last paragraph in the article mentions that the canvas is in good condition. Which is it - oil on panel, or oil on canvas? DJ Rubidium (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)DJ Rubidium

Panel - changed. Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)