Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portrait of a Musician/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2020 [1].

Portrait of a Musician

edit
Nominator(s): Aza24 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is article is about Leonardo da Vinci's only known male portrait, and the first of his three famous black-background portraits. After many months of leaving and coming back to this I am confident I have created a comprehensive and well written article. If passed this will be my first FA and the first Leonardo da Vinci related FA – hopefully the first of many. I've long been fascinated with Leonardo's works, and this one caught my eye to the point where I felt I had no choice but to improve its article. A big thanks to CaroleHenson who gave a thorough GA review and Ceoil, whose continuous suggestions, copy edits and encouragement was invaluable. Leonardo holds a special place in the art world, not just for his immense fame and prestige, but for the endless heated debates over attribution, dating, intent and subject matter – more so than arguably any other artist. I've worked hard to go through a lot of scholarly sources and neutrally but accurately summarize the modern consensus for these issues. Any and all comments, suggestions or criticisms would be much appreciated! Aza24 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "is an unfinished oil[n 2] on walnut panel portrait painting widely attributed to the Italian Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci, dated to c. 1483–1487.[n 1]" I might move "portrait panel" a bit earlier to avoid the slightly opaque "walnut panel portrait painting". Possibly "... is an unfinished portrait panting in oil on walnut panel".
  • "Franchinus Gaffurius was the most convincing suggestion throughout the 20th century and in the 21st century scholarly opinion shifted towards Atalante Migliorotti. " Maybe "but" for "and"?
  • Footnotes should be in numerical order if multiples are used, except if you are saying that the first footnote is the main source for the passage.
Ah yes, I've gone through this now.
I've been doing some copyediting, feel free to revert any you don't like.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern scholars, including as Syson and Marani, have observed that it could have not been completed much later than 1487." But it wasn't completed. Maybe "composed"?
  • " It is possible that it may have been given to the Ambrosiana in 1637 by Galeazzo Arconati [it], but this is unconfirmed.[8]" the last four words seem unneeded.
  • "and it may be that the subject was anonymous.[36]" What does this mean? If there was a subject, surely he had a name?
  • "and the subject of the painting is a young man; Gaffurius would have been in his mid thirties at the time.[43][44]" Perhaps not tactfully phrased. Some may consider the mid thirties to be young. Perhaps "in the first years of adulthood".
  • "Additionally, in a 1482 inventory from the Codex Atlanticus[n 8] Leonardo listed "a portrait of Atalante with his face raised".[18][n 9]" Codex Atlanticus probably doesn't have to be linked again, and likely needs a comma.
  • " self proclaimed ideology " likely a hyphen is needed here. Please check for similar usages.
  • "This theory suggests that the sadness in the young man's eyes is due to this proposed idea that music simply disappears after a performance.[52]" "proposed" probably isn't needed.
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done, except the anonymous line. I'm not sure what the solution here since the source is equally as unclear: "Some think the subject is simply anonymous...". I would guess that this is either referencing the possibility that Leonardo drew someone from his imagination, or went out in the Milan and drew a random person he – as he so often did – but then turned the sketch into a painting, which would be more unlikely. Perhaps I should just take it out? I didn't see any other scholars consider this, even though Pooler says "Some think..." Aza24 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A direct quote is a possibility if you think it's worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Reads well, but art is not my field.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to a direct quote, many thanks for your review! Aza24 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby by Indopug

edit

Driveby comment the three notes in the very first sentence of the article are jarring and distracting, especially since they happen to display in reverse order (first n3 then n2 then n1). I don't believe either the materials note or the dates note need to exist in either the lead sentence or even the infobox, since you have a discuss it more in detail in the article body. I also think "unfinished oil on walnut panel portrait painting" is a bit confusing for the lay reader; maybe hyphenate it "oil-on-walnut-panel" or remove some of the descriptors.—indopug (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug fair points, I've opted to remove the notes and I rephrased the first sentence - best Aza24 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "it is his only known male portrait" - don't see this in the article text, what's the source for this claim?
    • Done – Added this in the second paragraph of Background section, it's nothing controversial anyways, he only has around 20 surviving works.
  • "The portrait's intimacy indicates a private commission, or by a personal friend" - I see the text supporting the personal friend claim, but not the private commission?
    • Done – Added this to the second paragraph of background as well
  • "praised for its ... ephemeral atmosphere" - don't see this in the text
    • Done – Yes this was a little editorial of me, altered to support some stuff in the description
  • Check for consistency in publication locations
  • Why is Kemp in Sources when other Grove publications, even ones cited multiple times, are in References alone?
    • Done – Not sure why it was like this...
  • FN47: don't see that author credit at the source?
  • Fn48: title here doesn't match that at source
  • Pedretti 1982: link provided doesn't match source details shown. Ditto Clark. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done – Yes I must be using different editions (mine are print), removed them.
  • Nikkimaria, thanks for your review. I seem to have taken some liberties with the lead, likely because it doesn't have citations, but I believe ever thing is cleared up now. Aza24 (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry Nikkimaria I seem to have forgotten about our last outstanding point here. I've gone with "City, Country" for all locations except the US where I've done "City, State, US" since I feel like a lot of the city names don't mean much in the US without the state, does this solution work? Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks—pass

edit

Aza24 as this is your first FAC, would like do do some spot checks re backing up claims on the refs, close paraphrasing, etc. Although my involvement is noted in the nom, it was more moral support and gentle pushing - have not added any content, and anyway this review will be a pass/oppose rather than a support/oppose exercise.

If you still have access to the books, can you pls scan and email the following pages, or post here links to online repros....

Thanks for taking this up Ceoil

Working through...

  • Clark 1961, p. 55 checks out in each of the 5 instances it is used.
  • Marian 161 - ok.
  • Fagnart 2019, p. 73 - ok in both instances.
  • Syson et al. 2011- Re above clarified requested via email ....p.86 which checks out...and is very interesting re a flat black background as per Early Netherlandish artists.
  • Pooler 2014, p. 31 - ok in both instances.

Passing this on basis that references provided back claims, & no evidence of close paraphrasing. Ceoil (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Support)

edit

A very fine start, glad to see you here! Not an artist, so please overlook my dumbness :)

  • We usually refer to people by their last names after the first occurrerence; why do we refer to him as Leonardo rather than da Vinci?
    • Yes, you're not the first person who has mentioned this to me, so its a common misonception. "Leonardo" is the academic standard and as such the one that all my sources used, as well as our WP article on him (which even has a little notice at the top). Essentially a) referring to him as "da Vici" is the equivalent to referring to Joan of Arc as "of Arc" b) its part of the longstanding tradition of referring to the Italian old masters by their first names, "Raphael", not "da Urbino" :) Aza24 (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Silly me, I knew that (lived in Milan) ... was thinking in Wikipedia speak rather than Italian :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fwiw, it's not just an Italian thing, but a feature of the jerky medieval/Renaissance/Early Modern transition to everyone having surnames, common to most European countries, certainly including England. Raphael, a generation later, is rather different - like Michelangelo he had a perfectly good surname, which his father used, but he ended up being branded by his first name. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that you lined up the image in the "Background" section with da Vinci facing off the screen to match the lead image, which you can't move to the left. If that is not the case, would you be able to juggle the images so that the Background image is not looking off the screen, or are you wanting to intentionally line it up on the right to compare to the lead? Images looking off the screen still cause me to go eeeeeeek!
  • Would rather keep it there for the parallelity to the lead that you mention. It is a little eerie but I suspect that there's a similar effect when looking at it in person, as I'm sure the man is eyeing down some unsuspecting painting on his right in the Amborsiana...! Aza24 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the images in the multiple image at section Identity of the sitter be reversed so they face each other rather than one facing off the page?
    • Sure, also nicer to have the Leonardo one "first"/on the left now
  • See MOS:DATERANGE, I interpret it as saying that this should be two digits: Portrait of a Musician before it's 1904–5 --> 1904–05. I could be wrong :)
    • And in the article text, you usually use 1904–05, but here you use all four digits ... Art historians have assumed the sitter to be a musician since its 1904–1905 restoration ... consistency throughout needed.
      • Good point, switched them all to the full years.
  • Why is da Vinci relinked in the image caption at the Identity of the sitter section?
    • Good question... removed
  • Must you use "small" in the image caption at the Atalante Migliorotti section? Very hard on old eyes :)
    • Removed
  • THANK you for the interlanguage links ... getting editors to use those in FAs has been a long time coming :)
    • I absolutely cherish ill links. The German, Italian and Chinese WPs have so many articles we're missing; if I'm not going to make them I should at least give others who are a link to build off of!
  • Punctuation issue here: Alternatively translated as: "a portrait of Atalante with his upturned face". or "a head portrayed from Atalante who raises his face".
    • Fixed
  • I suspect the section "Musical score" is underusing italics on MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Sample, Latin for "angelic song"; although art historian Martin Kemp notes that it could be "Cantore Angelico", Italian for "angelic singer". --> Latin for angelic song; although art historian Martin Kemp notes that it could be "Cantore Angelico", Italian for angelic singer. Interpreting "words as words" is often tricky, though, and I could be wrong. Also, proper nouns in non-English language are not italicized (just a note ... have not yet seen this article doing that).
    • I checked out that link, and found another, MOS:SINGLE, as such I opted to put in language templates for the Latin/Italian (which italicized the words), and changed the english translation to single quotes... I think this is what MOS wants?
  • Just a personal preference ... the use of the "respectively" construct always causes the reader to have to read backwards to see which refers to which ... Attribution is based on stylistic and technical similarities to other works, notably the face of the angel and St. Jerome from Virgin of the Rocks and Saint Jerome in the Wilderness respectively.[2][9][16][n 4] ... And then to wonder which source refers to which piece. Can this be split to avoid the respectively, and attach the specific citations to each piece. In fact, I am not sure what is "respectively" here at all ...
    • I agree and definitely see an unnecessary lack of continuity now that you mention it. Changed.
  • I have always wondered why the French can't call the man by his name ... and the 2020 Louvre exhibition, "Léonard de Vinci" ... but not your problem :)
  • Refs in ascending order, sample, check throughout ... This is thought to have been a study or an early attempt to create Portrait of a Musician.[19][18]
    • These should be good now
  • The writing is just beautiful ... these art history articles are always one of the great pleasures of participating at FAC. That said, Mike Christie's essay at WP:RECEPTION might be helpful in terms of things like "mixed" and "praise".
    • Thanks for the essay; (thankfully) Syson says that critics have offered "mixed opinions" so no risk of OR in this case...

I look forward to supporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and comments! Aza24 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil

edit

Final quibbles having followed this page's dev for months and read several times;

  • The first certain identification was in 1672; "Certain" isn't right as you say nobody still knows. Maybe "claim"
    • Changed to "The work is first securely documented in 1672..." – does this work? I just wanted to make it clear that the first two years are uncertain while the 1672 is when it was the earliest it was for sure known to be at the Ambrosiana
I would drop "securely"...either there are records or there are not. Its attribution is a different thing. Ceoil (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... removed Aza24 (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to mix up half profile, three-quarter profile and frontal in places.
  • It's implies that Northern Renaissance painters "came up with" flat dark backgrounds. Was not one of van Eyck's major innovations that he moved beyond this. Although Francis Bacon would be pleased.
    • I think they did? The earliest ones at least – I can't imagine who else would have. van Eyck seemed to have slowly departed but still has 5 or 6 black background portraits himself
      • Yes but they were his early works...one of his innovations was moving beyond. Will look back at sources shortly. Ceoil (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a world of difference between this and this. Did Leonardo previously have detailed backgrounds? Would would remove, or tone down, the claim. Ceoil (talk)
          • Leonardo only has Ginevra de' Benci before the Musician but I've seen no direct connections/anaylsis between the two other than noting their similar hair! I've specified to "predated by Netherlandish artists, who often set their portraits..." since I agree that surely many paintings were not set as such, but portraits alone seem to be regularly against black backgrounds, all of van Eyck's portraits for example. Aza24 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see now its rephrased as "predated by Netherlandish artists" Ceoil (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that may have been you lol
  • the subject's face is not raised as in the 1482 note - "mentioned" rather than "raised"...otherwise "not raised as described in the 1482..."
    • Went with the latter
  • Dont like "Therefore, since"
    • Agreed, kept it as just "Since..."
  • Cant parse this as written, though I know what you are getting at a major difference lies in the figure not facing the viewer, opposite of not only almost all of Messina's portraits,[34] but Leonardo's other portraits as well - change 'opposite' to maybe in contrast to, drop 'as well', and rephrase 'major' and 'lies'.
    • Changed to "While art historian Daniel Arasse suggests that while Portrait of a Musician is the most similar of Leonardo's portraits to Messina, the figure is facing the viewer, in contrast to not only most of Messina's portraits, but Leonardo's other portraits." – which I think works now?
  • I have no doubts as to the quality and breath of the sources used....ie its comprehensive and meets 1.b of the criteria[2]
  • Confident of 1.d given the diligence and stewardship of this disputed and contentious work (mention as is a first time nominator)
  • Leaning support on 1.a if above are resolved. Ceoil (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query from nominator

edit

So I've been thinking and I was wondering what the reviewers think about this idea: (pinging Wehwalt, SandyGeorgia and Ceoil) I'm consider adding some extra images (in a mini gallery) to the background section, in order to appropriately give the visual context of the work. It would look more or less like this. I think that such an addition helps the reader understand the work's inspiration and place in art history but I don't want to go overkill here; insight would be appreciated. I could also add an Early Netherlandish portrait (say Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?) or Léal Souvenir) to give the full background, but that, in my mind, is unnecessary. Aza24 (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of adding this, yes defiantly. For another thing, have though for a while that you are missing a trick by bunching all the images into a composite. Not so sure re the ENA paintings; would they add much Ceoil (talk)
I also think the sandbox sizing of widths="220px" heights="180px" is about right. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I stole those sizes from Honan :) Aza24 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've always felt that the reader is well served by showing them. If there is a wealth of images available, use them.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK – I've added them. Sandy hasn't said anything, but if she has any further insight, it is welcome of course. Aza24 (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ham II

edit

Fantastic to see this, and I can appreciate how much work has gone into condensing all the sources. I've got copies of Clark 1961 (and a 1993 edition of the same), Syson et al. 2011 and Zöllner 2019 (as well as loads of other books on Leonardo not in the bibliography), and have been checking the article against these. I've also done some copyediting work on the article over the last two days, so please let me know if you disagree with any of my choices there, Aza24.

  • "Sometimes known as Portrait of Young Man" – presumably Portrait of a Young Man?
    • Done – good catch
  • "in oil-on-walnut panel" – pace Indopug, there shouldn't be hyphens here, because "oil on walnut" isn't a compound modifier describing the painting's support. This also slightly contradicts the statements elsewhere that the medium might be oil and tempera, but I appreciate that adding "(and perhaps tempera)" would overstuff the sentence. I'd suggest leaving the medium out of the opening sentence (as well as the statement that it's a portrait, which should be obvious – see WP:POSA) and instead simply calling it "an unfinished painting widely attributed to the Italian Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci, dated to c. 1483–1487."
    • Done – normally I would disagree but the chance of confusion in that it might have tempera seems like a good reason to take it out of the lead. I had listed "portrait" to link to "portrait painting" but I can alter just "painting" to link to that
  • "Stylistic resemblances to other works by Leonardo, especially in the sitter's face, have secured at least a partial attribution." – worth adding "to the master" at the end of this sentence, to clarify that an attribution to Leonardo is what is meant?
    • Surely, especially since I'll take every opportunity to call Leonardo a "master" :)
  • "Inspired by Antonello da Messina" – is this proven? Later on you've got "Leonardo was likely influenced by Antonello's style".
    • Changed the first to "likely" – both Syson and Marani don't seem to present it as a certainty, merely a likely influence
  • "such as Virgin of the Rocks and Lady with an Ermine" – in the literature definite articles are usually added, thus: "such as the Virgin of the Rocks and the Lady with an Ermine". Similarly, "but Portrait of a Musician [...]" should be "but the Portrait of a Musician [...]". Arguably, the article should begin "The Portrait of a Musician [...]".
    • I checked some sources and I would agree... changed all the instances I could find
  • "Franchinus Gaffurius" – All the sources I've got refer to him as "Franchino Gaffurio". I can see, though, that his entry in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and his English Wikipedia article are titled "Franchinus Gaffurius", so there must be one convention for the musicologists and another for the art historians! What are your thoughts on this? I can see the argument for being internally consistent with our own article titles, but also for following the sources discussing the painting, not the composer.
    • Hmm while I don't think there's an obvious reason for one over the other, I think I'll stick with the current, since I suspect that the art historians are using a more Italian spelling and the musicologists an English spelling. That and the fact that he's a music theorist/composer so it may be better to stick with the musicologists on this one
  • "the most convincing suggestion" – possibly "the most favored candidate"? Rephrasing would prevent the following sentence's "suggestions" from being a repetition.
    • Done – good call
  • "detailed face" → "the high level of detail in the subject's face". The current phrasing is a bit too vague IMO and could be misread as referring to the surface of the painting.
    • Yes, definitely
  • "a small 44.7 cm × 32 cm (17.6 in × 12.6 in) walnut wood panel" – I can't say I'm a fan of measurements appearing in prose like this; it seems like the kind of thing infoboxes are made for. I haven't checked whether this is ever done in art-historical writing, but it seems unlikely.
  • "The museum which has held the painting since at least 1672, the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana,[4]" is an unnecessary detail for a note discussing the medium; simplify it to "the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana", linking to the webpage with the relevant information. The text that follows this would read better if the instances of {{Harvnb}} were changed to {{Harvtxt}}.
    • Well the point I was trying to make is that the musuem would have had plenty of time to analyze the painting, perhaps I should simplify to something like "The painting's current location"? I changed to harvtext, looks a lot better. I'm hesitant about using the external link, mainly because the risk of the page needing to be archived.
      • @Aza24: I don't see how the length of time the Ambrosiana has owned the painting would give it a head start on understanding the materials – surely the most reliable scientific analysis would be the most recent? (Which has reminded to check the 2014 Leonardo da Vinci's Technical Practice edited by Michel Menu; turns out it's got a chapter on the Musician.)
I would also add that apart from this being an unnecessary detail, it makes it look as if the citation is for the portrait's having been at the Ambrosiana since 1672, a date which doesn't appear in the source. (The citation for that date comes later, in the "Attribution" section.) I see your point about the external link in my suggested text "the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana", so I'd now suggest "the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana[5]" instead.
  • Is "Chiesa" the right surname for Angela Ottino (d/D)ella Chiesa? There seems to be a preference for "Ottino Della Chiesa, Angela" here.
    • I wasn't sure about this, so I'm glad you could do some research, I've changed to what you recognized as the most prominent.
  • "Latin for 'angelic song'; although art historian Martin Kemp notes [...]" – should the semicolon be a comma?
    • Probably comma
  • "Angela Ottino Della Chiesa identified eleven scholars who supported an attribution to Leonardo; eight attributions to Ambrogio de Predis; two undecided and one to another student of Leonardo, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio." – again, semicolons or commas?
    • Sticking with semi colon, since it's interchangeable here and better separates from the comma before Boltraffio, if that makes sense
  • Should "A Venturi" be "Venturi", or does he need to be distinguished from someone else? If the latter, "A. Venturi" follows MOS:INITIALS. Tooltips might be a good idea for the remaining art historians' names without links in this note, i.e. {{tooltip|Carotti|Giulio Carotti}} and {{tooltip|Castelfranco|Giorgio Castelfranco}}.
    • Done – great point. For Venturi I followed what Ottino Della Chiesa did, which I'm assuming is to avoid confusion with Lionello Venturi.
  • "the face of the angel in Virgin of the Rocks [...] and St. Jerome's face from Saint Jerome in the Wilderness" – the angel's face looks different in the two versions of the Virgin of the Rocks. I assume this is a reference to the Louvre version? I'd suggest "the face of the angel in the Louvre Virgin of the Rocks [...] and that of the titular figure in Saint Jerome in the Wilderness".
    • Changed – I would agree your phrasing is better/clearer

More is to come. Ham II (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments so far Ham – just glancing at them you seem to have provided some extremely useful insights and critiques. Unfortunately my schedule is getting rather busy but I'll be sure to get to them in the next day or so and look forward to your future comments. Aza24 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ham II just to keep you updated, I've addressed all of your comments thus far. Aza24 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Sorry for the delay; here are some more comments from me:

  • The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, this filename and our article on Greek love are all under the impression that the portrait is of Marsilio Ficino. Is there any evidence to suggest that art historians have ever seriously thought he was the subject?
  • The two sets of numbered footnotes would be more distinct from each other if the explanatory footnotes used letters instead of numbers; "[n 1]" presumably stands for "note 1", but isn't "[1]" also "note 1"?
    • Not really following; this seems to be a common system on other articles.
      • @Aza24: I wasn't aware of the classical music featured articles using this. It's not my favourite style for the reason I gave (and to clarify, by "letters" I meant a, b, c, etc., as opposed to n preceding numbers), but it's clearly an acceptable style. Ham II (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many Italian musicians and politicians have been proposed as the sitter" – is "politicians" the best way to describe Ludovico and Gian Galeazzo Sforza? What about "noblemen"?
    • Ah good point
  • "the music is not by him" → "the musical notes are not by his hand", for the avoidance of ambiguity.
    • That seems to change the meaning, since the musical notes are certainly by his hand, by the composition is not. I changed to the "this musical composition" although I'm not sure if this is better
      • @Aza24: In that case I misunderstood; the previous sentence reads as if it's about the visual appearance of the notes. I've looked at the Bambach article and would now suggest changing the paragraph's final two sentences to the following: "Leonardo's surviving drawings of rebuses with musical notation do not resemble the score in the painting. It is therefore unlikely that he composed the music, meaning that its composer and significance are unknown." Ham II (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a counterpart to the Portrait of a Lady – worth adding "in the Ambrosiana" after this as the title is such a generic one? I'd also suggest "pendant" instead of "counterpart".
    • Both done
  • "reminiscent of Ginevra de' Benci" → "reminiscent of Ginevra de' Benci"
    • Oops yes...
  • "the musician's pupils" → "the pupils of the musician's eyes", again to avoid ambiguity.
    • Done
  • "suggesting their collaboration" – Suggesting the collaboration of either Boltraffio or Marco d'Oggiono with Leonardo, or both artists with Leonardo, or both artists with each other?
    • Uhhh both artists separately, I believe it's clearer now
  • "Leonardo's First Milanese period" – why the capital F? Later, in a footnote, you've got "first Milanese period".
    • Good question... changed
  • "Leonardo engaged in a study of human anatomy, especially the skull, in the late 1480s." – This point seems a bit underdeveloped. Looking at the source (Syson et al. 2011, p. 95), the argument there seems to be that in the Musician the attention to detail is all at surface level, and doesn't yet show an understanding of the structure of the skull.
    • Well yes, by "Leonardo engaged in a study of human anatomy, especially the skull, in the late 1480s" I mean like 1488–1490, which is part of the reason the detail in this one isn't up to par, since it's from 1483–1437. Not sure how I can make this clearer in the text but further insight would be appreciated
  • I'd combine [n 6] and [n 7] – and why does [n 7] appear first in the article body?
    • I've removed those notes here, probably unnecessary
  • "The Portrait of a Young Man (c. 1490–1491)" – add "in the Pinacoteca di Brera"? (Again because of the generic title.)
    • Agreed
  • "black overpaint", "a layer of black paint" and "layers of black paint" – Judging from the pre-restoration photo, it looks as if it wasn't just black paint that was removed, but also paint the colour of the stole.
    • Yes I suspect this is part of the larger restoration as a whole. No sources have specified this, from what I've seen, so there seems to be little we can do here...
      • @Aza24: I see that "a layer of black paint" is accurately quoting Fagnart, although the visual evidence suggests otherwise. What if that were changed to "a layer of overpaint", which to my mind is still an acceptable paraphrase of the source? Ham II (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly
  • "The man may have appeared in other works" – add "by Leonardo and his studio"?
    • Done
  • "He was known to have befriended Leonardo" – "is" not "was"?
    • Yes...
  • "the subject of the painting is a young man; Gaffurius would have been in the first years of adulthood." – These two statements are not mutually exclusive.
    • Changed
  • "ideology of the superiority of painting over other art forms" – Worth working in a link to Paragone somehow?
  • Looking at my own 1961 edition of Clark, Penguin Books was then based in Harmondsworth, so is "City of Westminster" right?
    • Certainly
  • The style "London, UK" (etc.) appears throughout the "Sources" section, but the footnotes in the "References" section have "London, England". Ham II (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Apologies, I missed that, or I wouldn't have harassed you.
@Ham II: ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I've still got more comments to come, but I'm afraid I can't give this my full attention until the weekend, as has been the case for the last few weeks. Sorry to hold things up. Although it's not obvious from the way the comments are arranged here, I did post more on the morning of the 22nd, as promised. Ham II (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham II: Ah. Apologies. I missed that, or I wouldn't have harassed you. So long as the review is progressing, that's fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Here's some more (and I've also replied above about the chapter in Menu 2014):

  • "It is his only known male portrait" → "It is his only known male portrait painting"; NB the Portrait of a Man in Red Chalk. Similarly, "Leonardo's only known male portrait" → "Leonardo's only known male portrait painting". The source (Syson et al. 2011, p. 95) does say "his only surviving painting of a male sitter".
    • Good catch, changed this
  • "the profile portraiture that predominated in Milan at the time" – This is my own phrasing, but I wonder if "Milan at the time" should be "15th-century Milan"?
    • Sure, I'm unsure about this but I don't see any harm, only an extra level of security against any misterpretation
  • Re proper left and right, "but his right eye far more than his left – something that is not actually possible" would be enough IMO.
    • I think the fact that I mixed it up mean that there is enough risk for confusion for the extra clarity :)
  • "Some defend Leonardo, claiming that" → "Some have argued that", per WP:CLAIM.
    • Definitely, changed
  • "stiffly-folded" → "stiffly folded" per MOS:HYPHEN: "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb".
    • Removed
  • "The Portrait of a Lady [...] by Giovanni Ambrogio de Predis was originally thought to be by Leonardo" – Change "originally" to "formerly".
    • Good point
  • "a Duke of Milan at the time" – "At the time" is confusing here as the date 1672 is given at the beginning of the sentence.
    • Good catch, changed to "during the painting's creation"
  • "uncharacteristic of Leonardo's usual paintings" – Is "usual" necessary here?
    • Would say so, only because the Annunciation is rather rigid – at least in my opinion...
  • "the eyes" appears in a list of Leonardesque characteristics, with no further explanation; what specifically about the eyes does Kemp think is typical of Leonardo?
    • He calls them "sensitive eyes" – have added, I'd be hesitant in detailing this more as it's the attribution section, not the description and the description already discusses the eyes sufficiently imo
  • The "Provenance" section would more accurately be titled "Provenance and exhibition history".
    • Agreed
  • The portrait was also in the 2015 Leonardo exhibition in Milan, Williamsburg and Boston. I'd suggest italics for exhibition titles – I don't think our Manual of Style has anything to say about this, but the Association of Art Editors recommends italics.
    • Thanks for both links, I don't think the ones in Boston and Williamsburg had the musician at them, at least the article doesn't make it clear that they do. I searched around and couldn't find anything that suggested they did. Have added the Milan one though. Wasn't sure about exhibition names so if they recommend that, that's good enough for me.
  • "Sforza, Gaffurius, Josquin and Galeazzo (Left to right, Portrait of a Musician center) have each been proposed as the subject" – "Left to right" isn't totally clear as there are two rows of images; what about Clockwise from top left: Ludovico Sforza, Gaffurius, Gian Galeazzo Sforza and Josquin have each been proposed as the subject of the Portrait of a Musician (center). To save space "Ludovico Sforza" could be "Il Moro", except that this name for him isn't used anywhere in the article.
    • I like your version better, have switched
  • "a study or an early attempt to create the Portrait of a Musician" → "a study for, or an earlier version of, the Portrait of a Musician"? Is this what the sources say?
    • Have just checked both, yes they both suggest this.
  • "The intimate feel of the portrait makes a personal friend as the sitter even more likely" → "The portrait's intimate nature makes it especially likely that the subject was a personal friend"?
    • Probably better, yeah – have added
  • Any idea what "Cantuz" means?
    • It means "Cantus" which was the uppermost part in Medieval/early-Renaissance music have added, although we don't have a WP page for it
  • "Leonardo declared in the beginning of his incomplete A Treatise on Painting → "Leonardo declared at the beginning of his incomplete Treatise on Painting". The second link to the article on the treatise in this section is unnecessary.
    • Have changed and unlinked

Thanks for your patience with my comments. Ham II (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Thanks as ever for your patience; this should be my final set of points.

  • The Musician isn't Leonardo's only painting still in Milan, as there are murals in the city by him, most famously the Last Supper. So I'd suggest changing "the only one remaining in the city" to "his only panel painting remaining in the city" (moving the link from the earlier "on a small panel"), and "his only one to remain in Milan" to "his only panel painting remaining in Milan" – if the cited source supports this.
  • You've got "the work is painted in oil", "executed in oils" and "[...] list only oil" (× 2). I'd suggest "oils" plural for all of these.
    • Agreed, changed
  • Possibly references to Kenneth Clark, Carlo Pedretti, Daniel Arasse and Eugène Müntz should be in the past tense, as they have all died?
    • Sorted this I believe. I also opted to change all the other historians comments to past tense, for consistency and that I suppose it's a little silly to have to update their comments when they die – probably better all in past Aza24 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luke Syson is referred to as a "Museum curator", which to me reads like a bit of a put-down when other scholars are called "art historian[s]".
    • Lol, fair point – changed
  • "a passage in Leonardo's notes suggests that the portrait illustrates this observation of his" → "a connection has been noted to the following passage in Leonardo's notebooks"?
    • That flows much better, thanks – changed
  • The date of the London exhibition was 2011–2012 and the Louvre exhibition was in 2019–2020. The Milan exhibition was subtitled Il Disegno del Mondo.
    • Thanks for finding this out – have adjusted
  • "negative comments have often led to the hesitation or rejection of a full attribution to Leonardo." → "scholars have sometimes been reluctant to grant it a full attribution to Leonardo"? Syson talks of a "substantial minority" who have taken this view, which is why I've picked "sometimes" over "often".
    • Probably better, yeah
  • "Zöllner considers its pose inferior to that of Ginevra de' Benci. [...] Eugène Müntz disagrees" – This is an odd sequence, considering that Zöllner is still alive and Müntz died in 1902.
    • Good point, have adjusted
  • I'm not too keen on the construction "art historian Kenneth Clark", "Biographer Walter Isaacson", "Flemish singer Giovanni Cordier" and so on. In many cases adding a definite article would be an improvement – and indeed you do this for "The architectural historian Luca Beltrami", "The art historian Laure Fagnart", "the Tuscan musician Atalante Migliorotti" and a few others, so there is currently an inconsistency. I also think that in at least some cases it's clear enough from the context that the person is someone with art-historical expertise, and the descriptor could be dropped altogether – an example might be "Leonardo specialist Angela Ottino della Chiesa", which would shorten an already complicated sentence. I find the "Critical opinion" section a bit of a jumpy read between the already introduced "Zöllner", "Marani", "Syson" and "Kemp" on the one hand and "French art historian Eugène Müntz", "art historian Jack Wasserman" and "Art historian Alessandro Vezzosi" on the other.
    • I've added definite articles to every case I believe. I think it's helpful to let the readers know why someone has the authority to give an opinion on these various things – this is not ideal in the critical opinion section since (as you recognize) some people have been introduced earlier and others haven't but I don't think it's a huge issue. The main hesitancy I have is that dropping some would result in a lot of inconsistency and it would be difficult to determine which ones to drop and which to keep. Aza24 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that should be it... Ham II (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ham II: Many thanks for your insightful comments. They should be all addressed now - Aza24 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ham II, do you think you're comfortable supporting, or is there perhaps more we need to discuss? Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: Just one final follow-up to the point about the exhibition dates. The links I gave to the National Gallery's website and the Louvre's have the dates but don't mention the Musician. For exhibition reviews which mention both the dates and the painting (and which could therefore also replace Searle 2011 and Nicholl 2020), try "Barone, Juliana (November 2013). "Review of Exhibitions". Renaissance Studies. 27 (5): 738–753. JSTOR 24423435." (p. 738 for the dates, 739 for a mention of the Musician) and "Bambach, Carmen (22 November 2019). "The Big Review: Leonardo at the Louvre". The Art Newspaper" – reformat these as you see fit. Ham II (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ham II, have done this. Aza24 (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aza24. I hope that last point wasn't too nitpicky; it was also about avoiding using primary sources (museums writing about their own exhibitions). And with all that out of the way...

It gives me great pleasure to support this article! Very well done, and here's to many more Leonardo FAs in the future (if you can stomach my reviews)! Ham II (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

A very interesting read, especially as it's not long ago that I did my own first painting FA. This has been well picked over by others, so the following are really just suggestions

  • male portrait x 2—portrait of a male?
    • Normally I would agree, but in this case it may be better to use "male portrait" since "portrait of a male" sounds weirdly similar to Portrait of a Musician I think
  • but is in good condition overall with—comma after "overall"?
    • Definitely
  • Author Walter Isaacson—His biographer Walter Isaacson would be more helpful
    • Agreed
  • The light dilates both eyes x 2—surely pupils of both eyes?
    • Done
  • author Angela Ottino Della Chiesa—again, "author" gives us no hint why her views matter, also it’s normally lc “della”
    • Changed this, and lowercased all around
  • Leonardo would engage in a study of human anatomy—engaged does the same job
    • Done – good catch
  • catalogued—is this correct for AE? I thought that "catalog" was the AE version of our catalogue
    • Yes... lol
Otherwise all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for you time and comments Jimfbleak, I believe I've addressed the points above. Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with all the above, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comments from Johnbod

edit

Just a few quickish points. I haven't read everything above.

  • First sentences. You can't leave essential details to the infobox. On my settings the text there isn't even visible in the first screen. The most basic details should be in the first sentences, including location, size and technique/support (I see there was some argy-bargy over the last above). On my screen the location only comes in line 14 of text. Btw, MOS:VA deprecates "housed in", though at least it doesn't say "currently". After argy bargy you have " [[portrait painting|painting]] in the first line - avoiding the Easter egg & just having [[portrait painting]] would be better, even if rather stating the bleeding obvious.
    • Ok, I've changed the portrait painting link. I don't see the "housed in" as one of the specific deprecated phrases but I assume it falls under the "similar phrases" category, I've removed it accordingly. I've added the technique/support in the second sentence, I would prefer to keep the museum later in the lead since it flows well where it is but am happy to discuss further.
  • I'd be inclined to split the current 3rd para at "Over the centuries", and move "Until the 20th century it was thought to show Ludovico Sforza, a Duke of Milan and employer of Leonardo." to the start of the new para. It's been a long time since anyone believed this.
    • Good point, have done this. I'm worried others will object to the 4 paragraph lead but each one is so short individually I think the seperation for continuity makes sense.
  • "... have secured at least a partial attribution to the master. The hesitation for a full attribution is due to the stiff ...." reads lumpily, and doesn't convey to me a summary of the good section on this below. Wouldn't "partial attribution" suggest LdV did some of the work, but somebody else the rest? This seems a somewhat minority view. Is "The hesitation for a full attribution" grammatical? I'd be inclined to go for something like: "Based on stylistic resemblances to other works by Leonardo, most current scholarship attributes at least the sitter's face to him. Uncertainty over the rest of the painting is due to the stiff ....". Or something.
    • Yes Ceoil made a comment about this a long time ago but I wasn't sure how to adjust, your solution works nicely.
  • "The sitter has curly shoulder-length hair, wears a red hat..." Do any of the sources give a name to the hat style? I think "cap" is the more usual term for these (and other brimless styles) . They were especially associated with Florence, especially a few decades earlier, & we could do with an article on the style.
    • Yes Syson says Cap; I think my ignorance changed it to use varied wording without realizing that they are different things :)
  • "and therefore likely representative of polyphonic music". Is "and therefore probably show polyphonic music" better? I think so.
    • Definitely
  • "Drawings from the Royal Library of Windsor " a made-up name. In fact we have Print Room, Windsor, which is where they actually are.
  • "containing Leonardo's music notational style" confusing - reword
    • Rephrased although I'm not sure how successful I was
  • "Doubts on ascribing the work to Leonardo" - reword - "about"?
    • Done
  • "While its first appearance in a catalog in 1672 listed it as by Leonardo,[26] a 1686 inventory attributed it to Bernardino Luini,[8] which was quickly crossed out and changed to "or rather by Leonardo".[5] Again in 1798 it was attributed to the "school of Luini" but was soon relisted as by Leonardo.[5] " - doesn't read smoothly, & you should make it clear all these are Ambrosiana listings, which hasn't yet been covered.
    • Rephrased
  • " X-ray testing" - there a link for this re paintings somewhere.
  • "The sitter's three-quarter profile was predated by.." reword to lose "predated"
    • Changed to precedented, although I don't really see an issue with "predated"
  • "by the cardinal Federico Borromeo" - should be "by Cardinal Federico Borromeo" - you might mention he founded the Ambrosiana.
    • Certainly
  • Galeazzo Arconati - you might mention the two LdV codices he owned (including the Codex Atlanticus you mention twice).
    • Added with a ref
  • I'd split the "Background" to create a "Provenance" section. You might call the remaining "Background" "Portrait style" or something.
    • Split into "Historical context" and "Provenance" – this is similar to what it used to be actually. The only issue is that the restoration is discussed in Provenance, is this ok or should it be changed to "History"?
  • "Likely inspired by Antonello da Messina and reminiscent of Early Netherlandish painting," - is this better: "Perhaps influenced by Antonello da Messina's introduction of the portrait style of Early Netherlandish painting to Italy...". Inspired seems over the top, & we don't know how many actual EN portraits were around in Milan for LdV to see.
    • Changed, I suppose it is a subtle line between "likely inspired" and "perhaps influenced" – it is hard to gauge the precise exposure Leonardo would have had to Antonello but I'd like to think it is very likely, scholars seem to be far less certain though
  • The 2nd pic of the portrait should be on the left, to face into the page (we don't normally do this for lead images)
    • Was suggested by Sandy above, I disagreed but with a second suggestion it seems worthwhile
  • "The work is first documented in 1672 when it was catalogued by Pietro Paolo Bosca into the Ambrosiana" - just "in the Ambrosiana" ? I'd put that at the start of the para myself.
    • Done – agree with both
  • The recent exhibition history should be its own para, & maybe a sub-section.
    • Done
  • "According to historian Richard Shaw Pooler, "some think the subject is simply anonymous".[37]" - What does this even mean? Never intended as an actual portrait, but some kind of genre painting? Seems pretty unlikely. Is Pooler really an RS - do any of your other sources support this?
    • Have removed this and all Pooler refs. Had some doubts about him before but looking into it further even if it is reliable I wouldn't call it "high quality" as the FAC guidelines ask
  • Giving dates to the various contenders would be useful for readers.
    • Agreed, added
  • "This theory has since been disproven as the iconographic evidence does not match Gaffurius to the sitter.[30] Kemp notes that the letters "Cant" and "Ang" could just as easily be "Cantore Angelico", Italian for 'angelic singer'.[2] Also, the subject of the painting was not depicted in a clerical robe, which would have properly identified him as a priest, and the subject of the painting is a young man (Gaffurius would have been in the first years of adulthood)." A bit of a rewrite needed? "disproved". The cap is also non-clerical , and perhaps the hair. The age bit is just confusing - distinguish between "young man" and "in the first years of adulthood" more clearly.
    • Rephrased this I think. Would be hesitant to add on the cap and hair since the sources don't specify them
  • The "Critical opinion" is mildly disappointing, after the depth of coverage of the various straw-grasping identifications. Is there more in sources?
    • Not much more although I added some. This is probably due to the overlapping of critiscm/praise between scholars, they mainly talk about the same things, pose, stare and lighting. Aza24 (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For once, a good use of a multiple image, which I normally don't like at all.
    • Yeah I was happy with how it turned out as well.
  • Don't any of the sources say that the dress is rather too middle-class for a portrait of a Sforza?
    • Not that I've seen, I guess scholars focused more on the attribution than sitter before the 20th century.
  • That seems to it for now. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ok, thanks, all these sorted, except I like "precedented" even less than "predated". Can't you just say "already common/usual in... " (which it was)? Perhaps not the moment, but if it was me I'd take the opportunity of Portrait of a Musician (Pontormo) to move this to Portrait of a Musician (Leonardo), with a disam page. Not important though. Nice work! Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by CR4ZE

edit

Although I'm late to the party, I did offer to give some input if needed here. I just took a run through the prose and, if it's okay with the coords, I'd have a couple of comments. I'm running off irl now but I will have something to you within the next 12 hours. — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Cr4ze, looking forward to any comments. I'll be sure to have a look at your article soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's a brief list, but here it is:

Description
  • Very thoughtfully-written descriptor of the work opens this article well. I kept flicking back to the image as the intricacies of the work were discussed. As a casual reader, I was fully engaged with the text here, so well done. My only query (and it is merely that): isn't it his right pupil that is notably more dilated, not the left? (We're looking at him so our orientation is reversed.)
  • Yes thank you for catching that. I checked the source, and you are of course correct, not sure how I missed it! Also thanks John for the link/term, have included it. Added the image as well, looks much nicer. Aza24 (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stiffly folded piece of paper" shouldn't this be hyphenated?
    • Certainly
  • "hypothesizing as to what" could you lose "as to"?
    • Agreed yes
Attribution
  • Would the introductory clauses "In 1798 the Ambrosiana" and "When first listed in 1672" need a comma? (Further down: "The work is first documented in 1672".)
    • Hmm I'm not sure about the first one but I would think so for the second.
  • "In the mid-20th century, Leonardo specialist ... another of Leonardo's students" just clarifying here as I may be misunderstanding: eleven scholars agreed the work was Leonardo's, but two were undecided and one thought it was someone else? Would "and one proponent of" read better as "and one a proponent of"?
    • Yes and eight to Ambrogio de Predis. Good point with the "a", makes more sense that way
  • "Other characteristics typical of Leonardo's style ..." Just on grammar, are semicolons needed to list these off or would commas serve better? Could "which seems to have just closed or is about to open" be separated from the main clause with parentheses or em-dashes?
    • Agreed, have adjusted
  • "the most cited frequently candidates" should "cited" and "frequently" be flipped?
    • Oops, definitely
Provenance
  • "No record of a commission exists" you've already said as much in the second para of Attribution. Perhaps this does need to be restated here? Just checking.
    • Good point, have removed
  • Can the single-sentence paragraph be avoided at all?
Franchinus Gaffurious
Critical opinion
  • "Zöllner says it the pose is" typo?
    • One would hope so :)
  • "Syson say it is dramatic and compelling; while Isaacson criticizes the shadowing but lauds the lighting of the eyes" seems a little fragmented. Is the semicolon needed or would a comma be better?
  • My apologies, I re-read this and realise it's listing off different critical opinions (either commas or semicolons work here, up to you). In either case, there is a typo here. It should read: "Syson says". — CR4ZE (T • C) 23:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interpretation
  • "A number believe" a bit indiscriminate. What about just "some believe"?
    • Sure yeah
  • "Leonardo famously declared" seems dubious: Leonardo famously said many things.
    • Have changed to "boldly" though perhaps that is too editorial
      • It was more a question of whether an adjective was needed at all. I'm okay with "boldly", but you can change it to something else if you're worried?
  • "The painting has also been seen to be" a little clunky
    • Rephrased this
General remarks

Overall, this is a fine piece of work and a wonderful prospective addition to WPVA's best articles. I enjoyed the reading here and I've learnt something about a work I was hitherto unfamiliar with. Not much else to note. I recognise that some of this is nit-picky, so feel free to push back if you disagree with anything. Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 12:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

edit

Interesting topic, or I'd go away, after you have so much support already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "most current scholarship attributes at least the sitter's face to him" - why "sitter's"? ... "subject's"? ... "musician's? - may be just my lack of English, - curiosity.
"Sitter" is a pretty normal, and technically correct, term for the subject of a portrait (even if they are standing). Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that using different ones would be ideal for variation in the prose but perhaps WP:VAMOS will reach a different conclusion. Aza24 (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe VAMOS says anything about the subject. Feel free to vary, but I think it already does, no? Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, learning. I am aware that it is a correct term, only raised the question if it is the best term in that sentence - I'd rather use it for someone anonymous, such as posing for a class of students, not a person whose personality plays a key role even if we don't know his identity.
That's just not the idiom, Gerda. If you're posing for a class of students, you're a model. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, learning. - Probably it's that I learned "babysitter" (a German word) early, - ignore me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

  • "In fact, the art historian ..." - what does "In fact" add?
    • I used it to connect to the previous line better, I think it flows better with it's inclusion
  • "biographer ... notes" - here it's present tense, sometimes past tense, - and I wonder until when it's present? - Will it still be present in ten years? - Perhaps better past with a year if it matters when someone noted?
    • Ah good catch, should certainly be past tense – changed

Musician

  • I am no friend of an image under the header, and pushing the next header "out", but he should look "in", so I have no solution.
    • Agree but yes I am not sure how to fix either...
  • A lot of detail is given to the eyes, but a blind person would not know the shape of the face, the nose, the lips.
    • Agree completely but alas my sources don't comment on those things – I suspect this is because of the rather "normal" shape, nose and lips
  • I am blind for the "smile" hint, and the "singing" - he looks plain serious to me, - that's probably again just me.
    • I could see it either way smile-wise – the singing comes from the small space between his lips I'm assuming

Musical score

  • To me, a score would rather be a book, and this looks like a sheet.
    • Fair point – changed
  • "This suggests that this musical composition is not by him" - not sure who is meant by that "by him".
    • added "by Leonardo"

That's it, I learned a lot, thank you, support. Do with the comments what you like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Gerda, have addressed the above I believe Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks to all! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Portrait_of_a_Musician/archive1&oldid=1146428471"