This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It seems to me that this entry is written from a quite evident editorial point of view. A great many aesthetic judgements are presented here as fact. For example "In his command of the burin Goltzius is not surpassed even by Dürer; but his technical skill is not equally aided by higher artistic qualities." What, exactly, are these "higher artistic qualities." Further, the editorial point of view represented is highly antiquated within the field of art history and the aesthetic judgements are not shared by most scholars working on Goltzius in the best couple of decades. See, for example, Walter Mellion's essays or the exhibition catalog Hendrick Goltzius (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003). --Sean Roberts 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Apart, I think, from the two penultimate paragraphs, this is all from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brtannica (see tag at end). You are very welcome to improve it. Johnbod 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
So add a claim sourced to an expert. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the story related at burin be mentioned here? — Sebastian 04:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Done, briefly. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry - after sleeping over it, I realized that that actually seems to be original research. When I first read it, I saw this as a connection with him being a printmaker, and thought about the burin's use for wood engraving. However, I now realize that wood engraving wasn't invented until long after his death. Would anybody have any source that the shape of his hand helped him with his art? — Sebastian 18:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)