User talk:Amandajm

Hello, Amandajm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Archives

Archive 1

Gothic Architecture

That's perfect, thank you. Matthieu 10:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

The only question I really have regarding the article above is in regards to exactly what qualifies as uncontroversial knowledge. If the majority of the article contains such information, then the comparatively light referencing as indicated there should be sufficient. I've never myself dealt with an main article of this type and the matter of what does and does not qualify as uncontroversial knowledge, so I'm really out of my depths in this regard. I certainly can see no objections to proposing it as a formal GA candidate, possibly indicating on the page that the above reason is the cause for the light referencing. Certainly, in all other ways, it looks to me like a more than reasonable candidate for GA status, but I'm not sure exactly what the "rules" are for u.k. in GAs. I think the best option might be to post your comments regarding this article on the Wikipedia talk:Good articles page and await a response from one of the more experienced GA judges there regarding the subject. John Carter 14:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new at this, but here is my "award" to you for the great work you did on the article. The essence of what you did is, I believe, still there (in spite of some minor edits?). Nonetheless, it was not an easy task to rework and make sense out of the mess that was there prior. What we have now is a cohesive, fluid and well-written article with some very appropriate images. Regarding the candidacy referred to in the post above, if there is anything I can do for support, let me know (as I said, I am new at this!). Mariokempes 23:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your approval. This was the only part of the entire article that I felt needed some improvement... although, I'm not completely satisfied with "humanist". At least the intent is there- perhaps you can improve on it? Mariokempes 18:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the history article is in dire need of an overhaul. Unfortunately, I don't have the time and it is well beyond a "quick fix". Nonetheless, I'd be glad to offer some input should, one day, you find yourself up to the challenge. Mariokempes 20:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 quick points: 1- saying that architects "decorate" (at any scale) is a biased statement most architects would disagree with. 2- Only speaking about the "monuments" (the eiffel tower, etc...) of a society is a mistatement. Architecture is much more than signature buildings.

--User:quilian 05:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(posted on previous conversation) Hi Amandajm

The article on Architecture has acceptable writing at best, has many errors of fact, and in general only half-represents the reality of architectural history, theory, and professional practice. What we are doing is not piecemeal editing, we are a group of architectural professionals, writers, and professors that are methodically going through the article using the archinect forum. We are also planning to expand the entry to include the theoretical and global perspective you are suggesting.

We would love your comments and edits but you cannot just dismiss us. We both care deeply about this entry so let us work together.

Best, Quilian

--User:quilian 05:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Amandajm,

I already apologized for the earlier misuses, but they were not done by a student but rather a concerned professional who is respected in the field of Landscape Architecture. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I think he just got overtaken with the excitement of the idea of wiki.

I hope that as you put the article "off your watch list" you will be around to discuss the changes with us, discussion is healthy and is what is at the heart of a project like wiki and archinect. Using my schedule it will take us about a month to finish the entire overhaul, but we would only change a section once it is completely ready. Please refer to this thread to see the NEW proposed outline and schedule: http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=60226_0_42_0_C

I seem to be in charge of the project. I am a STUDENT at Harvard University's Graduate School of Design. But if you are bias against my student status I can tell you I have been in the field for 10 years writing, editing, and designing in academia, the architectural press, and with some of the non-profits and design firms on the cutting edge of the field. But I am sure you have already seen the small bio I put under my username.

Monuments, although the most visible forms of architecture to the general public, are not the most important concerns of architectural discourse. If the idea of a wiki is to expand and educate people beyond what they already know, the description of architecture needs to go beyond the pyramids, the Colosseum, and the Eiffel tower. Not expanding that definition of Architecture for the general public (meaning those outside the design fields) may lead to a further dilapidation of the built environment with one or two monuments (that pass for Architecture) for an entire nation. Decoration can be a larger discussion than we may not need to get into in this section of the article. I propose that we do not include anything about decoration in the definition of Architecture, but rather in its historical context. Furthermore, Most architects today would not take it kindly if you told them that they "decorate." We are not writing an obituary to an art long dead, but rather a recap of a vibrant tradition of design that is strong today and has changed through the ages.

Let's keep talking, I am looking forward to a productive relationship.

best,

Quilian

--User:quilian 11:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our proposed outline for the Architecture section:

Introduction

1 The Architect 1.1 Education 1.2 Profession

2 History 2.1 Origins and the Ancient World 2.1.1 Origins 2.1.2 Mesopotamia and Egypt 2.2. Europe 2.2.1 Classical European Period: Greece and Rome 2.2.2 Medieval Europe 2.2.3 Renaissance and the Enlightenment 2.3 The Islamic World 2.4 India 2.5 East Asia 2.6 Pre-colombian Civilizations 2.7 Africa 2.8 Modernism (1920-1960) 2.8.1 Global Modernist discourses 2.9 Architecture since the 1960's 2.10 Architecture Today

3 Theory of Architecture 3.1 Historical Treatises and Manifestos 3.2 Contemporary Theoretical Discourse 3.3 Sustainability

--User:quilian 12:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annunciation (van Eyck)

There's an edit war ongoing with a frantic, Wiki-illiterate editor who doesn't accept my Wikifying of his (her?) article. Help is needed to reach a consensus about a decent version will kept here. Can you help? Thank you. --Attilios 11:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Amanda. Well, that person is a bit out of her mind. If you read the discussion at Annunciation's page, you'll see she's totally out of any Wikipedia rule. As for those images, I deleted simply 'cause they appeared exactly as the main image. Instead, she thought them as exapndable, and I agreed: in fact, now they appears in an apposite gallery at the bottom's page. What are you working on of nice lately? See you soon! --Attilios 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

The problem-

There is a series of articles on the subject of History of art. There has been a box created to go in all the articles. The title of the box is "Art history".

However, art historians make a distinction between Art history and History of Art. "History of Art" is the progression of art through cultures and periods. "Art History" is the discipline practised by art historians.

The box needs to be relabelled "History of art".

Some of the specific articles also need moving so that they say "Western art", not "Western art history", for example, because "Western art history" is the study of art as it is practised by (specifically) "Western" art historians. It is not the History of Western art. In this particlar instance, three differnet titles all link to the page, so moving it should not be problematic.

But, how does one change the title of the box, and how does one change the list of subtitles in the box so that they read "Western art, Eastern art, Islamic art" etc instead of "Western art history, Eastern art history, Islamic art history"?

I'm myself an art historian. see Leonardo, Sistine Chapel ceiling, Renaissance architecture, Cathedral architecture of Western Europe, Giotto etc. I'm currently writing Italian Renaissance painting.

--Amandajm 06:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Hopefully I can provide some advice on how to resolve the issues you've presented. Firstly, the box that needs to be renamed is most likely a template. If you view the source of a page the box is on, you should see {{something}} where the box is located on the article. You can edit the template by visiting it's template page, which for my example above would be Template:Something; the word Something should be replaced with whatever is located inside the {{ }} marks on the articles containing the box. Before making the change, you may want to discuss the change on the talk page.

Secondly, articles can be moved by using the "move" tab located near the top of the article. The new title you enter will be the new location for the article with a redirect left behind where the article used to be. Discussing such a move first on the article's talk page is a must, to ensure that there is consensus for such a move.

I hope I have been able to assist you. If you cannot find the template page for the "box" based on my directions above, I will be able to provide you with a direct link to the template page if you can link me to a page that contains the box. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 07:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: re Templates

Thank you for your message. Just something I'd like to point out: most Wikiproject tags have two different ways of rating the article: on class and on importance. "Class" are the ratings you referred to ("stub", "start", "b", "GA", "A", "Featured") while "importance" is "low", "mid", and "high". Please note that there is a difference between Class and Importance. An article's class is not determined based on the how important the subject is or how vital the information presented therein is. An article's class is a ranking of how well written the article is, among other editing issues. The article's importance, however, is where you would rank the article's importance in the scope of the Wikiproject. If you have any questions further, I suggest asking questions on the Wikiproject's talk page. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao!

Ciao Amanda. I didn't understand what you needed with Cremona, sorry, maybe I was a bit absent. What I can say is that you're making a fantastic job with Italian Renaissance painting. Hugs from --Attilios 09:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True Cross

Hi Amandajm. I'm not sure I entirely understand your point. I take neither a pro-Christian nor an anti-Christian position. I'm merely a dispassionate observer of history with an interest in expressing things as simply as possible in a neutral point of view, which is what Wikipedia is all about. Is it possible that your pro-Christian stance (" ... What one wants (as a Christian) is to get them to follow a link to something more powerful.") is getting in the way of adopting a similar approach? This isn't the place for Christians and anti-Christians to be fighting their battles; the rest of the world is available for that. In any case, it seems now that at least 2 other editors have made changes along the lines I did, so others also seem to be of the view that a simpler description of the True Cross is warranted. "The subject of certain records" can apply to anything - the White House or the Taj Mahal or Beethoven's 9th Symphony are all the subjects of certain written records, but we don't use such language when describing them, so why do it for the True Cross? That there are certain written records is a fact, and they can be fully discussed in the text of the article. Cheers. -- JackofOz 09:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		for unvaluable cultural articles such as Italian Renaissance painting Attilios 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ren. painting

Of course that was the meaning. Just a note: "Messina" sounds horrendous, it is not his surname!!! "da Messina" is meant just as to specify which "Antonello" is him. Please write always Antonello da Messina. Hugs from Attilio. --Attilios 11:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Reba_Schappell_in_concert.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Reba_Schappell_in_concert.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacAskill

The North Sydney referred too in the article is in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia. It too is a suburb of a larger town known as Sydney. Part of the greater Sydney-Dominion-Glace Bay metropolitan area. I removed the link to the antipodian Sydney found in the article and pointed out the correct locale. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noah

Terrific explanation [1] ! JNW 13:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, right about the good efforts of first-time contributors. I too easily forget such basic wisdom when I spend more time looking for reverts (being critical tends to become a self-perpetuating, and downward, spiral) than contributing content. Speaking of which, my kudos to you for the heavyweight contributions--I'd feel like an interloper to even try to suggest a better title for your Renaissance/themes article.

Thank you for the kind words--Friends was done a few years ago, of two dear students, really brilliant artists who are still practicing. The picture was painted over a few false starts; in the event, what is now evident was painted in just three or four sittings. All my time is not spent at the keyboard: in the last few months I've completed a whole bunch of paintings (a portrait, some figures, and landscapes). Renoir once said that it would be asking too much to do what he loved and expect to receive financial compensation for it...this contributor is exceedingly fortunate.

I hope all is well with you. I am glad you are writing on Wikipedia. Keep up the great work, JNW 03:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, judgment can be spelled both ways--I changed it to be consistent with the spelling of The Last Judgment in the linked article. Although I may have changed a few alternative spellings along the way, my intent has been to honour your 'English English'. JNW 14:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't mind telling you again that your contributions are essential. JNW 14:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For your intelligent and passionate contributions. What would the Renaissance be without you? JNW 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOG

Yes, the NG Titian exhibition in 2003 had those two, plus the 2 from the Prado, plus smaller panels above by Dosso Dossi (these not adding much), all in the same room, which was fabulous. The catalogue doesn't mention Giorgione at all, nor do the pretty full notes on the NGA web-site, so I dropped him. According to both, someone else, probably Dosso Dossi, had a go, but was nearly all overpainted by Titian. Vasari had mentioned Titian & recent study (after a big clean & technical exam) has confimed it.

Borgonone (or whatever) isn't the most exciting painter, but we don't want to annoy the Milanese - according to them it's Rome that's provincial!

You may not have noticed my saying so in an edit summary, so let me say again it's great work your're doing on this and the other IR article. Johnbod 13:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - until 18 months ago I worked an 8 minute walk from the NG, which was wonderful. Their exhibitions over the last few years have been amazing - glad you caught the Caravaggio. The Raphael caused a lot of fuss, but the NG are standing firm. For a time there was a chap standing outside the NG handing out flyers claiming he had painted it. I don't know the full provenance, but it had been in the Dukes of Nothumberland collection for a long time, in recent decades as a workshop copy or similar - some critics suggested that was more accurate. They had a Raphael exhibition where they lined it up with similar small works and it seemed to hold its own. £20m seemed a lot then - at current prices it seems rather reasonable. It is very small, and they have lots of other Raphaels. Their Rubens Delilah cutting Sampson's hair has been claimed to be a forgery for a long time - there's a website on it inevitably. Johnbod 14:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's claimed to be a modern forgery - it appears on a wall in the background of another painting, & I think was engraved - then it disappeared. So the forger would have had the composition to follow. I don't believe it myself. Johnbod 15:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back!!

Hey, somebody added a copyedit tag to our Cefalù Cathedral. Do you have any idea why? Good work!! --Attilios 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Thanks. Thank you for good work as usual. --Attilios 08:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was entirely my bad. Oh the dangers of using multiple monitors. I had articles open in all three of mine yesterday and as far as I can tell I put the tag on the wrong article. I read through this one a couple times to make sure, and as far as I can tell it's perfect. Sorry about that and have a good day. Trusilver 17:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Amanda

I hope you have recovered from your holidays and getting to grips with all you wikipedia editing. Malcolmlow 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request of copyedit

Maybe you can give a copyedit glance (language) to Vittore Carpaccio and the articles about paintings I've just made (you can find them in my user:Contributions of June 14). I've also made Trento Cathedral, Basilica di Santa Maria dei Servi , Palazzo della Pilotta and Fontana del Nettuno, Bologna. Ciao and thanks!!! --Attilios 09:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for good work as usual!! Good work

Problem!

I went to my user prefernce page with the aim to seeing how a different "skin" affected the appearance of articles. Having doen that, I can access the page, but cannot use some of the functions on the menu, including the "skin" which I want to set back to the default. --Amandajm 11:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC) {{help}}[reply]

Hello Amanda

It's good to hear from you again, I am pleased you had a lovely holiday, and seen you granddaughter best in the whole world, a proud Grandma!! Yes it is a shame that some churches have to lock their doors. I have written a booklet on the Funtley Iron Mill and Henry Cort only 16 pages A4 for local interest in the Library and the Museum for people to read who do not have internet, sometimes we can forget this!! I had help from another website contributor Eric Alexander who has been researching 'Henry Cort the Father of the Iron Trade' he has helped me with the correct information, he has a wonderful site http://www.henrycort.net/

I added the detail to the webpage of the iron-mongering business with all good intentions but Peter-King did not really appreciate the intrussion into his work. I do not know how to retrieve it but as you know I a willing to learn. Hope you settle in alright, Malcolmlow 16:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Amanda for your time and help I have copied the article from your message onto a Word Page for future use. I have rechecked Henry Cort site and I think I would be duplicating it there, I was hoping that the ironmongering would like to have a note of the work that Cort did. Malcolm Low 19:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your harassing Italian friend

Sorry... but maybe you'd be interested in Basilica di San Zeno di Verona... --Attilios 21:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Amandissima!! (PS: "Bambino" is also quite-no Italian but it's toooo funny toooo!!!) thank very much for your copyediting of my article. As for "narthex" (Italian: nartece), it was just my approximatively translation of the Italian protiro, which I could not find on my vocabulary. Is there a direct English translation? Now I'm seeking for the other ones I put in other articles to check them. I think, the church you're meaning is Santa Prassede (can you believe, I've never been there? The Velabro one is San Giorgio al Velabro, near Santa Maria in Cosmedin, and is Byzantine). Good work and thanks again. --Attilios 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theater of Pompey Help

I certainly can use your help with this article. I found it as a stub and added 90% of what is there. I am pretty obsessed with the Structure. Researching it has been a great joy. Probably my biggest surprise was seeing my words quoted during a later web search and seeing the page copied in many locations. It needs work to add mention of Proffesor Packards latest digs and the Pompey Project. --Amadscientist 02:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll be adding information from James Packer's site that goes into detail about the last big project early this decade. --Amadscientist 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaon nonna! I like your funny stories about tourism in Italy... as for me, I'm still missing both S.ta Maria in Cosmedin and S. Giorgio in Velabro, for when I went there one time they were both closed. Not to speak I miss St. pudenziana and S. Prassede... Waaahhh! Can you believe I've been engaged for 9 years with a student of architecture? Well, I was instead the man of culture of the family... she never proposed me a single trip to anywhere or any place!!! SO now I'm trying to recover time slowly. Ciao and good work (In the meantime I've finished sant'Agostino di Siena, Scaliger Tombs, Palazzo del Podestà, Santa Anastasia, Verona, Santa Maria Maggiore, Gazzo and San Francesco, Bologna. Also a request: the articles on Gothic art are awful, especially about Italy. In the Italian version there are a little bit more complete articles for each main nation. Are you going to make something in the field? --Attilios 08:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh eh... you've got entangled with my Italianish English... I meant "added the bell". Ciao and thanks!!! --Attilios 11:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally been in Santa Prassede! the byzantine chapel was outstanding... however, a was with a female Swiss friend who the whole time complained about being hungry, thirsty, sick, sleepy, cold, hot etc... Thus we arrived late and could only rush to see the basilica. Grrrrrr! Anyway, I liked it. Ciao and good work. --Attilios 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gothic architecture

Hi Amanda. The two paragraphs you're referring to don't look all that related to me. The second paragraph doesn't really mention anything about Abbot Sugar. If both paragraphs were about him, then the second paragraph should have at least mentioned him. You do have a point that it would be better for the Islamic influence to have its own paragraph rather than just a sentence, but there's no need to get aggressive about it. Regards, Jagged 85 11:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I confess I didn't understand anything in your last message. Of course I don't know nearly nothing about Gothic evolution in Italy. What I could do is to translate the Italian article for good. And you? --Attilios 11:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished Gothic architecture in Italy. It looks sketchy... of course needs your attention to correct language and terminology. Can you believe it? The Czech and Polish articles look hugely better!!! Do you know such languages? Do you think you can bring it to something comparable, also for other countries? Thanks and good work!!! --Attilios 10:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS... just jumped on Autun Cathedral and could not believe the childish level of the article. Struggling between my poor French and some google grabs, I managed to provide this. Let me know if it's good. --Attilios 11:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AHHH!! Soorrrryyyyy... don't know why, I was convinced in your emisphere people were sleeping at this tme... Hugs... --Attilios 08:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanesque or Gothic?

OK, I'm very pleased to do it. However, you must promise that, once finished with Romanesque, you'll improve beautifully as usual regional articles also (say, Gothic architecture in Italy, England, Portugal etc...

Back area of Parma Cathedral
Cathedral and Baptistery of Parma
St. Antimo Abbey
Empoli Collegiata
San Ciriaco, Ancona
San Vittore alle Chiuse, Genga
Basilica di San Nicola, Bari
San Giovanni degli Eremiti, Palermo

Just check my new expansion, St. Antimo Abbey. Needs some help as I was in trouble with some architectural language. Thanks and good work!!! --Attilios 12:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cologne Cathedral

Hi Amandajm - There is some difference of opinion over whether bare years should be linked, but the majority feeling (and mine) is that it's almost always valueless. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial_dates). It's very unlikely that anyone would click on this sort of year link, and if they did, they're even less likely to find anything useful there: the year articles are just a ragbag of unrelated facts. Colonies Chris 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic architecture

I've fixed a few typos and redlinks. This is a very good article (in my untutored opinion), well organised, illustrated and fully referenced. You might think about getting it rated - it has potential to be a Featured Article, I think. Colonies Chris 11:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Hans Christian Anderson

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I do, however, still feel it was an inappropriate addition to the lead, and clumsily stated. Next time I will add the {{fact}} template as you suggested. María (críticame) 14:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The newest addition to the lead is much better, thank you. María (críticame) 14:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hassling"

I don't know what it means... I added that note in Romanesque architecture not an invite tou you, but as a generical explaination why I had added the expand markup. Best wishes from Atti. --Attilios 14:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gothic architecture

always plased to help... :) Maybe you can tell me your opinion about a personal idea of mine about romanesque architecture in Italy... My idea it that the large stained galls windows wre not used also because in summertime the chuch wouldd be too hot, so a large wall would be better. Does this sounds stupid? Did you ever read something like this in an architecture book? let me know, cheers --Sailko 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)e[reply]

Fra Angelico

Basically, I saw that the article seemed to be primarily complete. Granted, the nine years were removed. Unfortunately, as a non-expert in the field, I had to assume that such was done for a reason, and it's not my place to question that when dealing with articles at Stub, Start, or B level. Also, so far as I could tell, there never was an "A" rating on the article, and it wouldn't be my place as an individual to award that anyway. That's what Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review does. The B rating, for what it's worth, is given to articles which are still a bit shy of GA level. This one is more than a Start, as it is, comparatively, complete, except for one section whose absence is questionable, but that absence is probably not sufficient in and of itself to put it at "Start" class. With any luck, a more formal, detailed peer review could be requested, and then any deficiencies addressed. And, for what it's worth, nowhere in the article did it say that it was written by an expert in the field, and I know that many/most of the articles I work on are not written by such an expert, as I would never describe myself that way. I grant you that I may have been wrong in placing the Visual Arts assessment in, as I am technically not a member of that project. However, I have looked there scale over and I see nothing which indicates that they treat biographical articles any differently than Biography or Saints does. As for placing the comments in the comments section, I could have done that. However, in going over all the articles relevant to the Saints project, which is the proximate reason for my doing the bulk of these assessments, I know that as a non-expert I would have any comments I would make very likely poorly received, given my own lack of prior editing on the article, and sought to avoid that situation. For what it's worth, the article will now be watched over a bit more closely, by myself and the project, and I am placing it on my watchlist, but I can't guarantee that I am knowledgable enough in the art field to catch any errors relevant to content in that field. If you do wish a more formal, detailed review, I certainly would have no objections to myself placing it up for a more detailed peer review. John Carter 00:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the importance assessments were done by User:Pastordavid, who has a rather higher knowledge of the subject than I do. My guess is that he was ranked as "mid" (which is higher than several FA articles about people commemorated in religious calendars, like Leonhard Euler got, because of the significant impact on Christian religious history and art he made. Pastordavid tended to reserve top and high ranking to the likes of the Twelve apostles, the Virgin Mary, and the big Christian theologians, whose lasting contributions tended to be more written than visual. Regarding things like the Ghent Altarpiece, I am also now moderately involved in the Christianity Project, and know some people in the Catholicism project, and will try to add such content as I can find on such works to them. When the content is there, it will be rather harder to question the addition of the banners.

I can try to get together content relating to the miracles of Angelico and his works. I have access to a really good Catholic library locally, and can try to find it there. I'm not sure of the age of the miracle(s), however, so they might be rather difficult to find references to them in English. I do have a question whether miracles tied to the works of Angelico and others would better be included in articles (if any) about the specific works, or in the main article about the artist. Regarding the allegations of personal misconduct being included, we're getting used to that. Wikipedia's beliefs about presenting "criticism" make them kind of unavoidable. John the Apostle recently separated out a whole article, Homosexual readings of Jesus and John, pretty much on the same sort of content. That might be the best approach here as well. John Carter 01:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Painting

you say "no need for it to be discussed in the brief summary given within the Leonardo da Vinci article" No need why. Says who? I am proof enough a simple summary why should be included. Stangely enough all the major news networks here on Mars haven't covered the controversy of the painting. Nor on Earth. At least not front page on the major news outlets be it BBC, Reuters, Fox, CNN etc. Rather than sarcasm why not add the information that way the caption actually has context to the article rather than be misleading and non linking for those who want to know why. Then you say "but it is something that people find interesting" whats interesting about a statement that doesn't say why? Hey this painting is controversial but here on the authors page we won't say why or link it we will just leave it up to you to dig. Not very helpful is it. So why not just best of both worlds if you know the reason why its 'controversial' add the info or link it somehow so those of us living on Mars know why. Rather than just being presumptuous and assuming everyone knows because you do. --Xiahou 22:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and linked it. That way it goes directly to the information in question. --Xiahou 23:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your preaching to the choir. I think So little of Browns opinions that I didn't take it into account. I so competley discounted them that it didn't even register. Its a flat earth issue to me. Its been shot down so much I thought issue was dead years ago. Just money grubbing sensationalism trying to change history to fit their conspiracy to sell books. --Xiahou 00:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic (again)

I'm not really up to contributing on architecture - I don't know the terms etc. But I'll keep an eye on it and add what I can. great work you're doing on these basic topics! Johnbod 02:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Will do, I'll put it in the reference and I'll leave you arranging the page as you want (this reference is present twice on the page BTW). Matthieu 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do it??

Can you teach me how to create a page plz?? It would be helpful--Editor232 15:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Len expanded

Added 200+???? Whoops! Still, my prose is definitely elegant and a boon to any article - anyway, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. I'll have a look at Architecture. PiCo 07:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Not my cup of tea. PiCo 11:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo da Vinci

Sounds good :).Thanks for showing me the scientist and inventor sub article of leonardo da vinci. Ill put the main article as mid and the science and inventor one as high importance.petze 07:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amanda

You'll have to do another archiving if you keep this up! You on gmail? PiCo 07:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Oz, in Canberra. Gmail is Google's email system - it allows text messaging (and I don't use any other text messaging system). Who's Wendy Richardson? PiCo 07:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email me. PiCo 08:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[Apologies - no more major minors; reverse all as you see fit - Neilbeach 06:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
[[Thanks - have opened KISS account, as recommended - Neilbeach 13:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arezzo

Hey!!! The most beautiful Romanesque church in the world IS Santa Maria della Pieve in Arezzo!!!!!!! Too stunning... I'm just back. I watched almost all Piero della Francesca masterworks, but in the end what impressed me the more is that church. Apart from exterior (also the massive mullioned windowed bell tower was striking), the interior is truly a full immersion in medieval word and sobriety. The reason it isn't famous? I think the fact that you can't shoot the façade if not from improbable positions; or that all art historians in Arezzo get much distracted by Piero's works. What a pity. Ciao and good work. --Attilios 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just added San Michele Maggiore by suggestion from a dead link in your article. It needs your attention for some terms (what the heck is the correct linke for the Cycle of the Months?!?!) Of course, if I see the "inuse" mark, I don't write in your articles. Good work. --Attilios 09:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kölner Dom Picture

Hi Amandajm, did you write me (Dstern German Wiki) about the Kölner Dom Picture? If you want, you can Downlowd and Uplod the Picture by yourself and put my name there.... If you have any prblems contakt me.... best Christoph

Cathedral architecture

There's a passage that I didn't understood [here], that about the campanile. What did you mean? Ciao and thanks. --Attilios 22:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanesque architecture

Your major edit should be, as you can see on the picture, "for a short while". Several hours is not "for a short while". Please let the other people work on Wikipedia. --Tlumaczek 11:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]