Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tomb of Philippe Pot/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 March 2023 [1].

Tomb of Philippe Pot

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A particularly mournful 15th century French tomb sculpture with eight pleurants (weepers) in black hoods carrying the deceased towards his grave. Enjoy! Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

OK, I think the heavy editing has finished? If so, there are just a few little tweaks needed:

Life and death
  • "in June Charles the Bold's daughter": I think a comma after June would help (some may trip up wondering who "June Charles" is
Effigy
  • "Lying on a limestone slab, and he is dressed": "and" isn't needed
Pleurants
  • "that referring to specific": "refers"
Provenance
  • "The tomb passed though a number of owners": "through", not though

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schro; have those sorted now, but am still doing a bit of regigging - noting major, a new source (Scholten) arrived in the post this morning and want to incorporate; should help address some of Borsoka's concerns below - maybe 200 odd words left to be added. Will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am done. About to collapse in a corner, but good points below. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping SchroCat if you get a chance. All issues below dealt with, far as I can see. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple more quite minor points on a further readthrough:

  • I'm not sure why we have "pleurants (pleurants)" in the lead? If the word is a cognate then we won't need bracket. (I may be talking absolute nonsense, so if there's a guideline that says you're doing it right, then carry on!)
  • The lead says Pot "around 49 years old, some 13 years before his death": that would make him 62 (ish). The body says he died in "1493 aged around 65". If the sources are confused on the issue, you could change the lead reference to "over a decade before his death" or "around 49 years old, before his death, when he was about 65", either of which gets rid of the problem. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Because France does not have freedom of panorama, all pictures of 3D works in France need a tag for the original work, not just the photo. Ditto Russia
@Nikkimaria have added PD-France to each, which seems to cover it. Ceoil (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Tomb_of_Philip_the_Bold,_08H5637_(cropped).jpg will need tagging yet. Ditto File:Philippe_Pot_Tomb_2006_(cropped).jpg, File:Semur-en-Auxois-Mise-au-tombeau-de-la-chapelle-Saint-Lazare-collégiale-dpt-Cote-d'Or-DSC_0318_(cropped).jpg, File:Dijon_(Côte-d'Or)_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_Tombeaux_des_ducs_de_Bourgogne_(cénotaphe_de_Jean-sans-Peur_et_Marguerite_de_Bavière)_-_Pleurants_(14922500276).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Happy to give this a review, comments to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original comments from PCN02WPS

Lead and infobox

  • "Tomb" appears not to require capitalization in the bold text (referred to as "the tomb" throughout the article)
  • "two last Dukes of Burgundy:" → recommend "last two"
    • Also, I think another punctuation mark would be better here since the sentence continues after the information that the colon preceded (comma would be my choice, that seems to flow well)
  • "Battle of Nancy" is capitalized in its article, does it need caps here?
  • "The detailed inscriptions running along the sides" → could simplify with "on the sides" or "written on the sides"
  • Could link lead in the lead's 3rd paragraph
  • "recorded as completed in 1480" → "recorded as having been completed in 1480"
  • "was placed in the 19th century in a private garden in Dijon" → I'd switch the "private garden" and "19th century" bits
  • In the infobox, "size" parameter would benefit from some sort of differentiation between measurements and the next label (like a comma or line break)
  • My only other infobox comment is that "c." should use {{circa}} since it is the first occurrence per MOS:MISCSHORT

Life and death

  • "long term" → "long-term"
  • "Battle of Nancy" is only previously linked in the lead so it can be linked here
  • "in 1477" is repeated in the first paragraph, the second instance could be replaced with "in the same year"
  • does "Burgundian style" need a hyphen since it's a compound adjective?
  • Not clear who the "he" is that hired Sluter and for which tomb, is this Philip the Bold or Pot? It's clear sentence 3 is talking about Pot but sentence 2 reads ambiguously.
  • In the second paragraph, sentence 3 is essentially a repeat of sentence 1
  • "in a style that reaches back" → this is worded a little oddly, perhaps "dates back"?
  • "The tomb is first recorded" → present tense sounds odd here
  • "given the inscriptions" → "given that the inscriptions" or "since [or because] the inscriptions"
  • To avoid duplicating too much information among paragraphs, I would remove "at the battle of Nancy" (since this is mentioned in para 1)
  • "It was placed in the chapel..." → comma is unneeded in this sentence since "at the corner of the south arm of the transept" isn't a complete sentence on its own
  • I suppose it's not 100% needed but is there a translation of the motto?
  • Does "his chapel" refer to Saint-Jean-Baptiste? If so the article does not mention that the chapel was his prior to this

Attribution

  • Philippe' → remove apostrophe
  • First sentence is missing some words and punctuation, and duplicates the "Battle of Nancy" information from the first section
  • "It is probable that" → What "it" refers to is unclear
  • "to agree an overall design" → missing word
  • Give Moiturier's full name and link him since he's not mentioned previously in the body
  • "between distinguish" → words are in the wrong order
  • When discussing Marcoux, present tense is used with "notes" but past tense is used with "believed"
  • "that it they were likely" → sounds like "it" isn't needed here

More comments to come shortly, just saving my progress. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • "ie can be seen from all sides" → "i.e." needs periods per MOS:LATINABBR
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph is a little on the long side - a good place to break it up would be after "iconography", and replacing the dash with a comma would work well
  • "The eight mourners on average" → I think starting the sentence with "on average" flows better here
  • "that is slightly less than life-sized." → "that is" can be taken out
  • "that mostly covering their faces" → missing word
  • Dagobert's death date is given in the "Life and death" section so I don't think it's needed here
  • Last bit of the first paragraph doesn't appear cited; if it uses ref 24, that can be repeated
  • "individually designed" → hyphen here for compound adjective
  • I'm not convinced that the numbers to label the mourners are necessary; the representation of the shields can just be listed on their own, though commas do need to be added (if the numbers are kept, mourner #5 is listed as being both on the left and on the right)
  • "Their weighty and austere poses gives" → "poses gives" do not agree
  • "individualised facial characteristics" → "facial" here is redundant because that part of the sentence is talking about their faces
  • Mention of their different heraldic shields is not needed since the prior paragraph is about that
  • Picture caption beginning "Left-hand view" is a little hard to understand, rewording it so it doesn't rely on parentheses would be better

Provenance

  • Could a job title or description for Louis Boudan be added so the reader knows his significance?
  • "French State" is capitalized at the end of para 1 but "state" is lowercase in paragraphs 2 and 4
  • The external link labeled "33 rue Berbisey" can be converted to a wikilink by linking to the file like this: [[c:File:Hôtel de Ruffey.jpg|33 rue Berbisey]]
  • "The Vesvrotte's" → this plural doesn't need an apostrophe
  • The photo caption for Au Solei does not include the accent on the "E" in "Édouard"
  • "In August that year" → "In August of that year"

Condition and restorations

  • "has been cleaned...in the 19th century" → tense doesn't match
  • "Some the letters and words" → missing word
  • "C2RMF" abbreviation isn't necessary since it's not used again in the article
  • "and the bare stone was cleaned, and additions" → repetition of "and"

Imitations and replicas

  • "The monuments's innovations" → is "monuments" here talking just about Pot's tomb?
  • "depicted" seems appropriate for the 19th century painting (assuming it was a painting of the tomb) but it seems like the wrong word for the sculpture since it's more of a parody or homage

That should do it for my comments for now - I will go back for another readthrough and look at references soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All points addressed now.[3] Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass-through

Lead

  • "room 210" information doesn't appear in the body

Life and death

  • "Philip the Good (reigned 1419 -1467) and Charles the Bold (reigned 1467 - 1477)" → need unspaced en-dashes for both date ranges (MOS:RANGE)
  • "During this period, he rose to become a knight of the Golden Fleece and lord of the La Rochepot and Thorey-sur-Ouche communes" → I'm not sure that there's something grammatically incorrect about this sentence but rewording to avoid repetition of "and" would be good (maybe ...and lord of the communes of... and ..."?)
  • "and Charles' cousin" → plural is "Charles's" in the start of the next paragraph, should be consistent and I believe the "apostrophe-s" is correct here (that is, "Charles's")
  • Is there a reason that Isabella's birth year is needed here, since we're not talking about her birth and her page is linked? Same question to Maximilian of Austria in para 3
  • "King of France" → since "lord" is lowercase in para 1, should "king" be lowercase here?
  • "Because of this, and on charges of perjury, Charles's and Isabella's daughter and heiress, Mary of Burgundy (b. 1457), expelled him in June 1477 from both the court at Lille and her realm." → sentence seems misordered and rather clunky, especially the first bit; my recommended rewording would be as follows:
"Mary of Burgundy, daughter of Charles and Isabella, expelled him from her realm and the court at Lille in June 1477 on perjury charges and because of his change of allegiance."
If you want to keep "heiress" in there, I'd specify what she was heir to; same birth year question applies here as above; and did the perjury charges come about because of the change of allegiance? If so that repetition can be avoided.
  • "the King's death" → I think "king" should be lowercase here too

Commission

  • "mourners (pleurants) began" → "pleurants" is not italicized in the lead; I'm not sure which is correct but I would be consistent
  • "built by the sculptors Jean de Marville and Claus Sluter from 1381" → "in 1381"?
  • This may just be a reading comprehension problem on my part, but I am getting a little confused by the timeline. The infobox states that its creation began in 1477, but the body says it was first mentioned in historical record in 1480, the lead says the record mentions its completion in 1480, but the body says it may have been as late as 1483.
  • "Pot commissioned his tomb some 14 years before his death" → the lead says "some 13 years before his death"
  • "prosperity, and explain his change in allegiance to Louis XI" → don't believe this comma is necessary

Description

  • "mourners, are painted in a relatively limited palette" → comma unneeded
  • "they have different poses" → "they" is ambiguous as to whether you're talking about the mourners or their faces

Provenance

  • "The antiquarian and collector François Roger de Gaignières made a number of drawings" → specify that these are drawings of the tomb (I assume)
  • "It is next mentioned" → present tense; switches to past tense later in the sentence
  • "Lord of Ruffey-lès-Beaune" → lowercase "lord" as above

Condition and restorations

  • "shows Pot's fingers as badly damaged" → I would either remove "as" or change to "as being badly damaged"

Reference formatting

  • Ref 46, ""Début de la restauration du tombeau de Philippe Pot", needs "language=" parameter

After a second read-through, this is what I found. Grammar and prose itself is much better. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS, thanks, all points now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments; one above and one in the "Commission" section: "The motif of its pleurants" → does "its" refer to Pot's tomb or that of Charles the Bold? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PCN02WPS I believe I may have fiddled with the sentence in the commission section; "its" refers to the antecedent Philip the Bold's tomb, i.e its pleurants. Victoria (tk) 20:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added the comma myself, so I'm happy enough to give this one a support. Immense improvement over the FAC review process. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Just checking, the "Tomb" is not actually a tomb, but a funerary monument?
    The sources treat them as the same thing. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Knight of the Golden Fleece". Why the upper-case initial letters? Similarly in the main article.
  • "Dukes of Burgundy". Ditto for D.
  • "Battle of Nancy". And B.
  • "he served under both Louis XI and Charles VIII". And Charles VIII would be? Perhaps 'and his son ...'?
  • "Philippe Pot was born in 1428 near Beaune in eastern France, as a godson of Philip the Bold." No, he wasn't born as Philip's godson. And Philip needs introducing.
  • "He served under the two last Dukes of Burgundy" → ' He served under the last two Dukes of Burgundy'.
  • "in eastern France". So it wasn't in Burgundy?
  • "his long-term enemy Louis XI". Introduce Louis.
  • "The tomb follows the style of". Which/whose tomb?
  • "Philip the Bold's tomb was commissioned in the late 14th century as the first of the Burgundian-style tombs ... Philip the Bold's, which was commissioned in the late 14th century as the first of the now well-known Burgundian tombs".
  • "Philippe Pot's monument was the last major tomb of the Burgundians". Do you mean that Pot was the last Burgundian to have a tomb? Or that his was the last in the Burgundian style? Or something else?
  • "Philip the Bold's tomb was commissioned in the late 14th century as the first of the Burgundian-style tombs."; "was designed in a style that dates back to the tomb of Philippe Dagobert (d. 1235)." There seems to be a contradiction there.
  • "The tomb was first recorded on 28 August 1480". But you go on to say that it may not have been constructed by then. How can it be first recorded if it didn't yet exist?
  • Caption: "Donor portrait of Philip Pot, unknown artist, Church of Notre-Dame of Dijon". Should that be Philippe?
  • Why is he referred to as Philippe rather than Pot?
  • "the chapel of Saint-Jean-Baptiste"; "Philippe's motto "Tant L. vaut, était" was painted in several locations within his chapel." The second statement implies that it was Philippe's chapel, rather than Saint-Jean-Baptiste's.
  • "but erroneously gives the year of death 1494 (rather than 1493)". Suggest 'but erroneously gives the year of death as 1494, rather than 1493'.
  • "Moiturier (active 1482–1502) is often suggested as". Do you mean Antoine Le Moiturier. If so, give his name in full and link it. And are you quite sure that he was active after 1495?
  • "the similarity of their facial types". What is a "facial type"?
  • "the variation of degree in the quality of sculpture". What?
  • "parts of the sculpture are so vaguely described". Described by whom and in what document(s)?
  • "a symbol of fidelity in most Burgundian tombs." "most" - so what does it symbolise in the remainder?
  • "Unusually the effigy does not contain any of the angels usually seen". You don't need both "Unusually" and "usually seen".
  • "contemporary Northern European tombs". Why the upper-case N?
  • "The eight mourners on average measure between 134 cm (53 in) and 144 cm (57 in)". You can't say "on average" and then give a range. An average is a specific figure.
  • "They are carved in black stone". Is anything further known about the nature of this material?
  • "playing a ceremonial rite". One does not play a rite. Perhaps 'participating in'?
  • "that lasted in the region". that took place, or that is recoded in, or similar.
  • "do not often appear in contemporary sculpture or painting, they appear in well known works". Is it possible to avoid "appear" twice in eight words?
  • "Kinship tomb". Why the upper-case K?
  • "mourners 1–5 and his right mourners 5–8." So mourner 5 appears twice?
  • "Their weighty and austere poses". "weighty"! What does the source say?
  • Is the article written in UK or US English?
  • "Other potential sources include". Do you mean 'influences'?
  • "on a short side of the tomb". What is a short side of a tomb?
    By the head and by the feet. A very common term when describing objects. Ceoil (talk)
  • "The tomb's passed though" → 'The tomb passed though'.
  • "The tomb was nationalised during the French Revolution". Could a date be given? If necessary a rough one.
  • "count Richard de Vesvrotte". Upper-case C.
  • "He placed it in the garden of the Hôtel de Ruffey, under trees at his townhouse". So it was both in the garden of the Hôtel de Ruffey and under trees at Vesvrotte's townhouse?
    Rephrased as "He placed it under trees in the garden of his hôtel particulier (townhouse), the Hôtel de Ruffey at 33 rue Berbisey in Dijon." Ceoil (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tomb has been cleaned and restored a number of times in the 19th century" → 'The tomb was cleaned and restored a number of times in the 19th century'.
Break
[edit]

There are a startling number of basic grammar issues in this article, to the extent that I do not believe it is ready for FAC. It would certainly have benefitted from a longer stay at PR than the 15 days it received. A trip to to GoCE would probably also have been helpful. @SchroCat and PCN02WPS: I would be interested in your opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild I am on the newer side to FAC but I would tend to agree with you - most of my comments were about grammatical or prose issues, and we found a lot of the same errors (mourner 5 listed twice, "his" chapel, etc). Some of the other stuff I found (transposed or missing words, misspellings, etc) indicates that a little more time copyediting or proofreading would be beneficial. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to note most of the issues were resolved this afternoon. The maimed will be done in a few hours. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Love the Freudian typo. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The irony (and double meaning) re spelling on an FAC I'M being called out for spelling is not lost on me. Anyway, I do appreciate all the effort and help you and PCN02WPS have given, and take you point re PR/GOCE. All up to date except re the point on the Philip the Bold stuff, which will address in morning evening, afterwhich can do a full proof read, and then ping for a revsit from ye both. Ceoil (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re irony: Indeed, God will know her own. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I'm butting in and will probably embarrass Ceoil. This is the first FAC I've read in a year, perhaps two - can't honestly remember. The long list of nitpicks isn't really how FAC should work or used to work, and doesn't actually set a great example coming from a coord. All that said, given the that the spelling issue has been a known issue for well over a decade the thing to do is help, not hinder. I'm willing to assist. I can attempt to address what you refer to as "basic grammar issues". There are a few walls of text above, so if you and PCN02WPS could please strike what you consider resolved, and please highlight what still needs to be done in that area. Ceoil can address any substantive comments that are posted. Does that work for you all? Pinging Ceoil, Gog the Mild and PCN02WPS. Victoria (tk) 18:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. That is not how FAC works, dumping responsibility for high lighting details of issues back on the reviewers. If Ceoil, and any other editors they would care to have assist them, could iron out the issues above and any other similar ones, then let me know, I will relook at the article and make any fresh comments which then seem appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs) 20:06, February 18, 2023 (UTC)
So reviewers no longer strike comments? Anyway, you've been quite clear as to your position. Thanks. Unwatching now. Victoria (tk) 21:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, just to reiterate, again, the lists above were mostly focused on very trivial items (a lot of preferences re caps, commas etc), and were fixed with in minutes. I diont want perception to be that the article was flawed, and maybe a withdrawal, as Gog suggested, or at least a refresh, is best at this time. Ceoil (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. No they're not. 2. I cannot see where I have suggested withdrawal.
[1] Actually yes they are with two exceptions re Philip the Good as pointed out!! Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when I read this FAC this morning that was exactly the perception I had. But when working through the article last night found only a few minor mistakes that were quickly resolved. If copyediting is what's wanted you've done a lot and I've done some and frankly were I reviewing I'd support. If they still want more I'm happy to address the trivial issues only because I think the tone is a bit snarky and I'm disappointed to see that from a coord who sets an example. If you're good to carry on, I'll happily rescind the offer and happily step back away from Wikipedia. It should be fun, which it is when stuck in a small corner, but there are definitely some unwelcome edges that I'm happy to avoid. Victoria (tk) 19:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my pov, the review has been *most* beneficial, I just dont want to be tarred with a SNOW quick fail.[4][5] Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I am pleased if it has helped; that, obviously I hope, was my intention. Ping me when you're ready for me to have another look. As an experienced nominator you will be aware that a (unrecused) coordinator will only even consider archiving a nomination if there is a formal oppose coupled with a recommendation of withdrawal, so crack on. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the Philip the Good stuff, took long as had to gather hardcovers. To note Vic did a top to bottom ce today, which I think solved a lot, incl the brit vs us spelling thing, highlighted above (something I dont have a clue about except adding a "u" is always good. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog, I'm cracking on - your specific points have been met, but some expansion, relating to your points, are coming from Borsoka's review below - will ping when ready for your further points / ay or nay. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As update, am not ignoring, have addressed major points (yours and others), going to give it a day or too before asking you to pull the trigger, which will hopefully be a "go" shot in the air rather than a bullet through my head )!! Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean I can't have a two-fer? :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless you run for RFA. Then you can do what the hell you want. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely - I have a fear of responsibility. Mah wa ha ha ha ... Gog the Mild (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy enough now for you to look over again. Am somewhat embarrassed by the earlier spelling/MOS stuff, and take the point re a longer PR, but would appreciate a 2nd view from you. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PCN02WPS - What are your thoughts on the status of the article as it now stands? Both you and Gog brought up significant concerns with prose, although later reviewers appear to view the problem as having been abated. I'm trying to gauge what the consensus of the prose concerns here are. Hog Farm Talk 02:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm I am going to take another look through now - thank you for the ping. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Break II
[edit]

I have done a little copy editing. If any of it causes concern, could you flag it up here.

  • "Philippe served under the politically fraught years ..." This doesn't work, grammatically.
  • "at the battle of Nancy he had waged against". One cannot wage a battle. Perhaps 'fought'?
  • "Pot commissioned the tomb when he was around 49 years old, some 13 years before his death in 1493." and "Pot died in ... 1493 aged around 49 years, having already made detailed plans for his burial place, funeral monument and epitaph."
  • "Pot's monument was the last of the Burgundian tombs". Do you mean that Pot was the last Burgundian to have a tomb? Or that his was the last in the Burgundian style? Or something else?
  • "Pot's monument was the last of the Burgundian tombs". What were the defining features of a "Burgundian tomb"?
  • "On average they measure between 134 cm (53 in) and 144 cm (57 in)". You can't say "on average" and then give a range. An average is a specific figure.
  • If the first Burgundian tomb was built in 1381 and the last in 1480 the the style of its pleurants cannot have developed over "centuries". This may or may not become moot depending on your response to the comment immediately above.
  • "Pot's effigy is moulded in the round". Is it known what it is made of?
  • "Le Moiturier is often suggested as". Goive his full name and link it at first mention in the main article.
  • "a filing eventually rejected". I think this would read better if "filing" → 'claim'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)#[reply]

Ceoil, I am somewhat confused by your posts and deletions. However, it seems clear that you have lost faith in me as a reviewer. So I shall take you at your word - "I cant be bothered to engage with anymore" - and step away. This is my 375th FAC review and I believe that I have carried them all out to the same standard and using a consistent and widely accepted interpretation of the FAC criteria. The large number of MoS non-compliances I picked up in my first run through were not "very trivial" and of the 11 comments I make above, 10 are IMO where the article fails to meet one of the criterion (the last is indeed "based [on my] preferences", which is why it is phrased "I think this would read better if"), not "nitpicking to an excessive digree" nor "trivial" issues.
To delve into my comment which caused profanity, in my first run through I commented ' "The eight mourners on average measure between 134 cm (53 in) and 144 cm (57 in)". You can't say "on average" and then give a range. An average is a specific figure.' To which you responded "Done." In fact you had changed the article to "On average they measure between 134 cm (53 in) and 144 cm (57 in)", which clearly failed to address my point. Ah well, we all have our moments, I certainly do; so, AGFing, I reraised the issue, as neutrally as I could. Which drew a "FFS". When I first read this I honestly thought that you were chastising yourself, but no - apparently it is aimed at me for having the temerity to check whether the issue was actually "done".
In spite of your invitation - "Its fine to oppose" - I am instead going to just leave the comments open for the closing coordinator to make of what they will, just noting that despite 207 edits since it was nominated, the article is still a work in progress. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few things

  • You review came off as off-hand, dismissive, mocking, high handed (now you say "is my 375th FAC review", FFS). My style is to fix obv stuff before I post a review, not use as a tool for humiliation.
  • I deleted the post within minutes, well done in resurrecting, nice power move. Wouldn't stand even on AN/I.
  • The nom is 19 days old with two supports. Many of yours and PCN02WPS grammer issues were duplicates.
  • It tend to save a lot (epc when moving images), so edit count is not an indicator of substantial changes to the integrity of the page.
  • The "average" thing was a genuine mistake...I had resolved the first instance, in the infobox.
  • I do (once again) take your point re a longer PR would have been wise. At this point you are haunting my dreams - see 2nd word, gulp!!!
  • For the record, your new points are met. But I do think characterising as a work in progress is unfair. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few other things:

  • I regret the deleted comments. They were unfair. A combinational of mental deficiency and an unwillingness of primary educators in late 1970s ILR to even pretend that EnglisH grammer exists, ie its all the Irish governments fault...and I "may" have been a bit defensive, and so....
  • ....in future I'll beforehand put through FAC noms though GOCE and (extended) PR, and maybe GAN, there by reducing the burnded on reviewers and coors Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Off-handed" as complained above could also be interpreted as "sharp and witty".
  • Your review has been most beneficial wrt the article's quality. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

[edit]
  • Philippe Pot was born in 1428 near Beaune in Burgundy and was a godson of Philip the Bold. Consider mentioning the Duchy of Burgundy instead of Burgundy (because Burgundy is ambiguous). Philip the Bold is actually Philip the Good. Consider referring to him as "Duke Philip the Good" to introduce him. You could also link the Duchy of Burgundy.
  • Delink "Burgundian court" since the court is not identical with the duchy.
  • Why "seigneur" instead of lord, why "a seigneur" instead of "the seigneur", and why "La Roche" instead of "La Rochepot"? You may also want to mention that his possessions were located in Burgundy.
    • The use of the term "commune" and the reference to Cote-d'Or is anachronistic in context.
      Word "commune" is removed. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also removed the reference to Cote-d'Or as it did not exist when Pot died. The term "Burgundian province of Cote-d'Or" was absolutely misleading.
  • Philip the Bold is actually Philip the Good. Philip the Good and Charles the Bold were not the last dukes of Burgundy although they were the last dukes of Burgundy who actually ruled the Duchy of Burgundy (I refer to Philip the Fair, and Louis, Duke of Burgundy who both held the title of Duke of Burgundy). Perhaps you could introduce Charles the Bold as Philip the Good's son and successor. Borsoka (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles the Bold was not defeated by Louis XI in the Battle of Nancy.
  • The dynasty did not die out with the dead of Charles the Bold as he was succeeded by his daughter Mary of Burgundy in most of his realms.
    • The Battle of Nancy did not weaken the Valois dynasty as the Valois Louis XI of France could claim Burgundy as a consequence of Charles the Bold's death in the battle.
  • Perhaps you want to mention that after Charles the Bold's death Louis XI claimed the duchy against Mary and occupied it to add a context for Pot's "involvement with Louis". You could also mention that Mary otherwise retained much of her inheritence to give a context. I assume Pot's "involvement with Louis" was related to the fact that his patrinomy was located in the Duchy of Burgundy, occupied by the French soon after Mary's ascension.
    My bio sources are only art historical...haven't found anything in English covering his change of allegiance. However Jugie 2019 mentions that after Nancy, La Rochepot came under French control, but unfortunately doesn't make explicit that he may have had no choice. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume Pot was expelled not only from the court but from Mary's realms as well.
  • I assume Louise is Louis.
  • Maximilian was also Mary's co-ruler, which is relevant in the context of the sentence referring to his negotiations.
  • That August?
  • Alternatively you may want to summarize Pot's life without mentioning much of the history of Burgundy.
  • The truce was signed on 8th September, and from its success Pot eventually served under Louis's son Charles VIII. I do not understand "from its success" in the context. Furthermore, Charles VIII was king from 1483 (not from 1477).
  • Consider mentionning when Pot died to complete his short biography, perhaps also mentioning the cause of his death.
    Had added the sentence: "Pot died in Dijon on 20 September 1493 aged around 65..." However, have been unable to find a cause of death. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Burgundian-style tombs began with the late 14th century tomb of Philip the Bold, designed by the sculptor Claus Sluter. It's distinctive mourners were often copied over the following centuries.[6][7] Pot's monument was the last of the important Burgundian tombs. Consider changing the sequence of the three sentences, because the reference to Burgundian-style tombs came without any introduction. Consider moving the three sentences to the following section (section "Attribution").
  • Consider also moving the last paragraph of the section "Life and death of Philip Plot" to section "Attribution" because the first sentence of the latter section seems to repeat previously mentioned information.
  • Pot paid the abbot of Cîteaux Abbey, Jean de Cirey, one thousand livres for a burial place... Where?
  • Use the "lang" template when mentioning Pot's motto and consider translating it. Borsoka (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, this is an excellent content review. Most points addressed [6], and will let you know when fully complete, but it may be the weekend - want to do more on the bio (weaving Mary and Maximilian in more) and evolution of the style of the Burgundian tombs. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revisit pls - have fleshed out the life and death section, although mainly indirectly via art historical sources on Isabella's and Mary's tombs. I'm not finding much direct bio info. The Philip the Bold stuff should be clear enough now but willing to listen to complaints. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pot was raised and educated at the Burgundian court and is known to have been a scholar and bibliophile. As an adult, he served... Was he a scholar before reaching adolthood?
    Dunno. Its not a bio, but the (art historical) sources indicate he was highly educated, accomplished warrior, diplomat and warrior. Those openions are the best we have in english, far as I can see. Ceoil (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two sentences are disturbing for they suggest together that he was a scholar and bibliophile before reaching adulthood. I think they should be rephrased. Perhaps: "Pot was raised and educated at the Burgundian court. He was a scholar and bibliophile, and held important offices during the politically fraught years..."
  • I think the fact that Mary of Burgundy inherited her father's realms in the Low Countries should be mentioned because for the time being we are informed that Burgundy was lost to the French.
    I believe this is already implied, and anyway this is not bio or broad sweep hist article. Ceoil (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a link to Burgundian Netherlands.
  • ...it is generally assumed to have been between 1480 and 1483 given that the inscriptions mention events after the January 1477 death of Charles the Bold... Why not between 1477 and 1483?
  • They range in height from 134 cm (53 in) to 144 cm (57 in), slightly less than life-sized... Slightly?
    I'm fine with this. The avg height was slightly shorter back then. How else could it be couched? Ceoil (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...described by the publishing house Ediciones El Viso as "masterful...in its technical audacity". Can we refer to a publishing house as a source? I assume the publishing house borrowed this statement from Sophie Jugie's book.
Done Ceoil (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... a ceremonial rite... What kind of ceremonial rite? Perhaps burial rite?
    Yes, burial rite, good spot, although hardly fatal given the narrow scope of this page. Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...mourners ... can be found on the tomb of Philippe Dagobert (d. 1235)... We were previously informed that mourners are the characteristic elements of Burgundian-style tombs, and Philip the Bold's tomb built in the late 14th century is the first example of the style. Now, we are informed that a tomb with mourniers had been built already in the early 13th century.
    Removed claim.[7] Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Guillaume Chandelier?
    Frankly somebody mentioned in a RS. i;m not finding any info online either. Ceoil (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the reference to him could be deleted as per WP:DUE.
      • He appears in at least three sources, it "seems" the theory was only debunked in last 20 years, but not sure. Have added "a painter active in Dijon at the time". Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have to know in the article's context that Count Richard de Vesvrotte was lord of Ruffey-lès-Beaune? Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are asking re "in the article's context"? Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, removed. Some people complain about too little context some about too much eg [8]; this review has been a sea-saw : Ceoil (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only two of my comments have not been addressed. I think my comment about Philippe Dagobert's tomb is still to be addressed because two sentences seem to contradict each other in the article. I assume that Burgundian-style tombs may have had other features than the mourniers. As soon as this issue is clarified I am ready to support the article's promotion. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. Added "...the Burgundian-style tombs, whose characteristics include the deceased having naturalised faces, open eyes and angels above their heads.[10] However the portrayal of the mourners (pleurants) is their defining motif. The style began with the tomb of Philip the Bold (d. 1404)..." Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, mentioned above that the Philippe Dagobert claim is removed. Its an involved point, out of scope here. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All my major concerns were addressed. I am happy to support the article's promotion. Thank you for this interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a very solid and rewarding content review. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

A lovely article. Just a few comments, mostly proofreading:

  • Life and death of Philippe Pot
  • "signed on 8th September" – the MoS bids us write "8 September" and not "8th September".
  • "Louis's son Charles VIII" – after a silent s as in "Louis", the customary possessive form is a plain apostrophe rather than s-apostrophe-s.
  • Commission and attribution
  • "customary for a secular burial" – I'm unsure what a secular burial is: if it means the burial of a member of the laity rather than of a cleric it might be clearer to say so.
  • Effigy
  • "Pot's effigy is molded" – as the article is in BrE (armour, emphasise, nationalised) it would be as well to use the BrE "moulded".
  • Pleurants
  • "a panted and gilded heraldic shield that referring to specific members" – two things here: "panted" should be "painted", presumably; and the "that" is not wanted.
  • "the de Montagus' and de Nesli's" – for the plain plurals of names, possessive apostrophes are not wanted.
  • Inscriptions
  • "l’an mil"" – curly inverted comma should be straight (MoS). This is the only one I spotted, but it might be as well to check for any others.
  • Provenance
  • "the French state too ownership" – "took" rather than "too".
  • "was employed to relocated it" – "to relocate" and not "to relocated".

That's all from me. This article makes me long to see the tomb, and I shall make of point of doing so when next in Paris. Tim riley talk 10:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - thanks for these. Think I have them all now. Ceoil (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too. Happy to support promotion to FA. Clear, readable, evidently balanced and neutral, well referenced and beautifully illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 14:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers

[edit]

Support. I still have a couple of pedanticisms, but I think it meets FA standards. Interesting read, it has given me some ideas for my own idealised funerary monument. I have made a few tweaks, I hope you like them, if not, well this is a wiki.

If he was born in 1428 and died in 1493 he would have been about 65 years old not 49. The lede has him commissioning the monument when he was 49 and then living for another 13 years, this adds up to 62 which is a lot closer to a 1428 birth and a 1493 death, but still looks anomalous. Later it says "His year of death is erroneously recorded as "l'an mil ccccxci[v]" (in the year 1493)" which contradicts the 1493 death, though MCCCCXCIV is actually 1494, which would indeed be erroneous if he died in 1493. So I've changed that to "in the year 1494"

I see you have this already fixed. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lede and the main text still contradict. Was he 49 when he commissioned the monument or over a decade later when he died? I've changed this to 65 when he died. Does that work for you? ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes. Now reads throughout born 1428 (aged 0), tomb 1480 (aged 52), died 1493 (aged 65). Ceoil (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Philippe Pot was born in 1428 near Beaune in the Duchy of Burgundy. He was a godson of Philip the Good and was raised and educated at the Burgundian court. Philippe served under the politically fraught years of the last two Valois Dukes of Burgundy, Philip the Good (b. 1396) and Charles the Bold (b. 1433). During this period, he rose to become a knight of the Golden Fleece and lord of the La Rochepot and Thorey-sur-Ouche communes in Côte-d'Or, north-eastern France" Beaune was then in the Duchy of Burgundy and is now in France, La Rochepot and Thorey-sur-Ouche are indeed now in France but whether they were then in France or Burgundy is probably relevant to this article. There are a couple of ways to describe these sort of historic changes in an article, but consistency is key, and I don't think we want the reader to think that in this era Beaune was in Burgundy but La Rochepot and Thorey-sur-Ouche were in France.

Yes, good point. I think I'll go with xxx loc (in today's France). Hold on. Ceoil (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have clarified that Côte-d'Or was then a province of Burgundy. Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re "The coats of arms on his shield and on those of the mourners, are painted in gold, red and black, and represent the insignia of his ancestral families" Are they just paint, in which case it would be interesting to know how the various restorers came to the current choices of colour and shapes, or are the designs carved onto the stone as one photograph seems to show? In either case, three colours is a very limited palette to cover 8 heraldic shields, has anyone commented on that and is this part of the reason why two designs are now unidentified? ϢereSpielChequers 08:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, but the sources I have don't expressly mention that the pallet was particular limited, though from looking at this (pre-restoration) pic, it clearly was. Presumably because, like flags, the colours in heraldic shields are symbolic, and tend to be in three's and we are taking about a dynasty here. All the other paint is black (assuming the faces are exposed limestone). The restoration notes don't comment specifically, although I only have the exhibition catalogue, presumably there is a dry technical paper out there, no doubt only in French. Also; tonally you wouldn't expect a funerary monument to be bursting with a rainbow of colours, especially as the sculpture is so heavy and austere. Ceoil (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re "know how the various restorers came to the current choices of colour and shapes"...the paint was damaged and faded but largely still intact. Also..only the shields are coulourised so they had obvious reference points. Ceoil (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See [9]. I cant go into further speculation, alas. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can't go beyond the sources, but if these are the various families he is descended from, (the eight families of his great grandparents?) then I would expect pretty much every common heraldic colour. However I can see that an artistic choice may at some point have been taken, possibly in a restoration as by then this has become an art object rather than a personal statement. ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the Jstor sites you used, But I have read the Louvre description and looked at the photos in it. There are clearly more than three colours used on the Mourners shields, and the design isn't just painted on, the photos show scallops and other designs clearly carved on the shields. ϢereSpielChequers 23:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what material the face is moulded from. Are you sure it wasn't carved from the same limestone as the slab? ϢereSpielChequers 00:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Pot is buried underneath his monument, located to the left of the altar." I think is buried should be was buried, as my reading of the article and the Louvre write up is that when the funerary monument was moved the body remained buried below the floor of the Abbey. Unless I misunderstand, his monument is no longer in the abbey but his tomb still is.... ϢereSpielChequers 00:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Will go back over the sources in a day or so. Ceoil (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers, have changed to "is buried". Both the effigy and crest patterns are from limestone. Re colours, have added

Just to clarify; the monument = "tomb" (per sources above ground), which has moved, but his "grave" (below ground) is still in situ. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion here is that we have a funerary monument that is called a tomb but has become separated from the part of the tomb that contains the body. I think the lede gets this right, and would suggest referring to it as a monument rather than a tomb whenever we are referring to just the monument. I.E. He commissioned the tomb in 1480 but from the late nineteenth century the monument has moved several times. ϢereSpielChequers 18:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers can you revisit pls. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"are not common in contemporary sculpture or painting" perhaps were if we are talking about contemporary with him as opposed to contemporary as in our era?
Re "hoods that mostly cover their faces" - "Although their faces are covered and thus do not have individualised features" - "likely to have designed the pleurants, given the similarity of their faces and the solid and rigid rendering of their clothing to the Mourners of Dijon which are often attributed to". Either these faces are mostly or fully covered, or presumably only observable up close. ϢereSpielChequers 16:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it’s mostly…you can see a few chins, jaw lines. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both points addressed. Ceoil (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the monument is carved from 9 separate pieces of limestone, it would be much more fragile and difficult to transport otherwise. Is this documented in any of your sources? If so it would be worth mentioning.As would any detail re assembly and disassembly. ϢereSpielChequers 18:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the constructive feedback, especially on the range of colours used. I'll be light editing only for the next while, but can dig more into the structure when properly back. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

[edit]

Support Has been pretty well chewed-over, & I don't have anything to add. Nice article. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria

[edit]

Support as per Johnbod. Made some edits and may have made some mistakes to the text in the process - am happy to fix or be reverted.

  • One point: it might make sense to explain to the lay audience that the pleurants in the other Burgundian tombs were quite small, placed in niches, detached, removable. The file, File:Dijon Philippe le Hardi Tombeau6 (cropped) (cropped).jpg shows pleurants from another tomb but it's hard to tell that they're tiny. I'm not suggesting the image be removed; rather that the text explains that the earlier preceding tombs w/ pleurants weren't as gigantic as Pot's, and that the tombs preceding the Burgundian's i.e Dagobert had relief carving not removable or almost walking pleurants (personally I'd get rid of Dagobert altogether b/c it's just too confusting). Panofsky's Tomb sculpture] gives a good two or three sentence summary overview that might be helpful.
    Yes & a very astute observation. The difference here vs earlier tombs is that the weight of the slab and effigy is -physically and structurally- carried by the very narrow shoulders of the 8 mourners, where as before the were, as you say, tindependent and free standing. Thinking about how to convey. will add. Ceoil (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Try Moffitt pp. 75-76. Page 75 explains Sluter's niche weepers, which can go to the section re Philip the Bold. Page 76, see the long quote (bottom of first column onto the next column) which explains that the procession itself became fundamental to the ritual for the Burgundians. I think you can slip that in, before the description of carrying the slab on the shoulders. If that makes sense? Victoria (tk) 16:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, thanks. Give me 24 hours to properly address (out with bothers and sister :)). Txs v much. Ceoil (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, and changed the image so gives better of their size relative to the tomb. Ceoil (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point: in the sources, Panofsky or Panofski? Or both? (Looks like it's two authors).

That's all. It's an absolutely astounding monument for a person who was essentially no more than a top level gov't official. Nice job. Victoria (tk) 15:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox aren't sourced anywhere, eg the dimensions
  • Why a location in FN6 when other inline refs have none?
  • Be consistent in whether dates are placed before (FN53) or after (FN51) publishers
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
  • Mikolic date differs between References and Sources
  • Be consistent in how short citations to multi-author works are formatted
  • No citations to Antoine 2005, de Winter 1987, Wright 1974
  • Is Panofsky Irvin or Ervin?
  • Locations are also inconsistently present and inconsistently formatted in Sources
  • Jugie 2010 is missing publisher. Generally speaking citation formatting needs cleaning up
  • How does Marcoux meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, all done except I'm comfortable with Marcoux; its a phd thesis with the Université de Montréal, and the claims relied on are largely descriptive or matters of historical fact. As a phd is obvs reviewed, and there are extensive footnotes. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, just checking on this with you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've now got one Erwin and one Ervin Panofsky. Otherwise fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2023 (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/Tomb_of_Philippe_Pot/archive1&oldid=1159216712"