Avoid three links together - the Italian Renaissance polymath Leonardo da Vinci.
Rephrased
Link ‘’poplar’’; ‘’Saint Anne’’.
Done
student of his – it needs to be clearer what the link is.
Done
Link ‘’unfinished painting’’, not ‘unfinished’.
Done
Remove ‘’Parma’’ in the infobox.
Well I recognize it is seemingly redundant but I'd rather not, since most, if not all painting articles have the city/location in the infobox
Amend to ‘’The Virgin of the Rocks’’.
Done
Consider unlinking ‘’lost’’.
Would rather not for now, working on Lost works by Leonardo da Vinci anyways so once I finish that I'll probably end up changing it.
Apologies for not being clearer, the link is fine if it's clear what it links to, I've amended the sentence to show what I intended to mean. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done – that was more or less my best guess for why it was sometimes spelled differently, I altered the note to present it as an alternate spelling.
Irrespective of the artist's identity,… is unnecessary.
I'd rather keep it in. I think it's good to clarify how the painting is regarded as masterful no matter if it is by Leonardo himself, or a student.
As it stands, the sentence seems unclear, and isn't a summary of text from the article. It could be interpreted by readers as saying that people who admire the painting do not mind about the identity of the artist, or that the three aspects of the painting given are the reasons for why it is so admired. If the sentence is retained, you need to add (cited) text in the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Little is known about the painting for certain; information on its subject, date, history and purpose is mostly speculative. The first half of this sentence duplicates the information the second, and is not needed.
Done
...perhaps being… can be removed as it adds nothing to the sentence.
Done
Records of the painting may exist as early as 1531 but certainly by 1826… - consider copy editing to something like ‘The painting was recorded in a sale in 1826, but proof of its existence may date back to 1531. It was sold to the...’.
Done – good call
While the opinions of scholars still remain divisive, the majority… - amend to ‘Most scholars…’.
Done
Name
Link ‘’nickname’’.
Done
... but is usually known… requires a citation, as Reference 2 (GNP Old Website) specifically says “ always known as La Scapiliata”.
Here is a case of being unable to find a citation for something that's somewhat obvious. All of the sources in the next sentence use "La Scapigliata" in addition to one of the many variations of English translations, to me that seems like evidence enough. And the way the second link is phrased with "It has been known by various names in addition to La Scapigliata, including..." seems to help this. Either way, I changed "usually known" to "best known".
The English translation of ‘’La Scapigliata’’ needs a citation.
Not sure where to cite it from, Scapigliato means "disheveled" (with the a at the end in "Scapigliata" it implies a female) and "La" means "The". The "Hair" is implied. The closest I could find is this index which cites many Leonardo works and has a list of references for them elsewhere on the site, doesn't seem citable though.
’’Head of a Girl’’ – as reference 2 is in Italian, I’m unsure how it can be used to cite the English name for the painting.
' I double checked with a word by word translation and it looks like "fanciulla" can mean either "girl" or "maiden" so I'll take it out.
Description
Italics for ‘The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne and Saint John the Baptist’.
Done
Link ‘’poplar’’; ‘’Saint Anne’’.
Done
The work's true nature is unknown… - I’m unsure that ‘’nature’’ here is the best word (I know ref 9 uses it), consider saying simply ‘The work has been variously referred to as a sketch, a drawing or a painting.’.
Done - Changed to "intent"
'’Dishevelled’’ or ‘’disheveled’’?
Done – not 100% sure but it looks like "dishevelled" is more appropriate
Other than her face, which takes up most of the painting, the rest of the painting is barely even sketched in, with a primed, but not painted background. - Consider amending this sentence, which has four commas.
Done
...much speculation… - why ‘’much’’?
Well it's a rather famous theory that the painting was left unfinished on purpose, I'd be open to changing it around by the "much" in my mind makes this stand out from less prominent theories.
In the caption, ... of the woman's face… is self evident, and can be removed.
Done
The title of this subsection is not particularly suitable, consider amending to something like ‘Description’.
Done – I moved the name section out to do so, should be good now.
Reference 4 (Bambach) doesn’t seem to verify the text in the article about the comparison with ‘’Adoration of the Magi’’ and ‘’Saint Jerome in the Wilderness’’. Is there another page?
Done – Good catch! The sentence is indeed misphrased, it should be better now
... a small… ...panel… - best to let the reader decide it’s small.
Would rather not, it's the smallest painting attributed to him – while no source says that exactly, if you sort by image on the works page it's apparent.
Understood, but it looks like an editorial comment on the size of the painting. Surely it's notable that the painting is the smallest one he painted—I would include this information in the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think it's notable - I'll cite a list of his works from Marani that has all of the sizes, and while it doesn't say specifically that it is the smallest, that can be inferred by comparing to each of the other dimensions Aza24 (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...much speculation… - why not simply ‘speculation’?
Per my comment addressing this above
Apologies!
Background – a and d
Link ‘’Carlo Pedretti’’.
Done – Should be linked already
Bambach in ref 4 doesn’t mention that there is “general agreement”.
I switched to a Marani ref that says the work is "ascribed today by as by Leonardo" – A Leonardo work as controversial as this is extremely difficult to write about in an encyclopedic fashion, general agreement is definitely the current consensus though, mainly because Art Historians that don't agree with it rarely comment on it. (And also because of the Museum exhibitions)
The second sentence (The attribution is not…) appears to contradict the preceding one.
There are paintings that are "Widely accepted" and ones that are "Generally", see the works page for further clarification.
If Kemp and Zollner are the only 2 scholars you are referring to, then Some leading scholars, namely,… is redundant and should be removed.
Done
...while others, such as… - if the are others, they need to be mentioned.
Done – Rephrased
...a student of Leonardo's… - it needs to be clearer that there is no particular student in mind here.
Done
The second paragraph is poorly written, and as a reviewer I don’t want to list all the issues. Some of these include:
... the painting was not by Leonardo and rather a forgery… - simply that ‘the painting was a forgery’?
Done
It’s not possible that Ricci is the current director. (Typo) Howe can a claim made in the 19th century be challenged soon? You need to go over the whole section and correct any grammatical errors and spelling mistakes that there are.
Done
...end up being catalogued as by the "school of Leonardo"… is inaccurate, as it doesn’t currently have that status.
Well at the time it was catalogued as that, after Ricci's claim (Until Venturi's disagreement) – how could I clarify that?
I've copy-edited the paragraph to take out some of the remaining issues, including this one. Please feel free to amend as needed. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...much historical evidence… is too vague.
I mean how would I rephrase it? He did discover much, all laid out in the "history" section.
You need to check through the section for words to watch, e.g. Recently in 2016…, and ... often ignored….
Done – The ignored thing is rather important as most historians address claims they disagree with, but this painting is ignored by many of them. (The source I cited uses "ignored") too – I changed it to "neglected" though.
I apologise for not being clear here, ignored was fine, but often ignored could be misread to mean 'ignored regularly'—I've reinstated ignored and tweaked the sentence. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a pass through this section again after I go through the rest of your comments.
I’m puzzled that this section is called ‘’Background’’ – there is very little background information provided. The title ‘Attribution and date’ should be a full section title, and should imo be placed before the previous section.
I moved those sections into full titles... I think I'll keep the attribution and date before, since the history has so much based on those two factors, it might make sense to have them before. But this is the case where the result of a FAC for Portrait of a Musician might change this Aza24 (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background – History
Link ‘’patron’’; ‘’ Gonzaga’’ (House of Gonzaga); ‘’Landsknecht ‘’.
Done
The link ‘’ducal palace’’ should have the palace’s full name.
I'm familiar with this palace in particular, it is almost always known as simply the "ducal palace" – and with the mention of Mantua and the Gonzaga earlier, I think it's clear enough.
Amend link ‘’ Federico II Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua’’ so it reads ‘Federico’.
Done
‘’Academy of Fine Arts of Parma’’ – use the Italian name.
Done
The second sentence needs copy editing.
Done
... However, it was likely stolen 3 years later by an imperial army of 36,000 Landsknecht mercenaries… - ‘It was possibly stolen in July 1630 when an imperial army of 36,000 Landsknecht mercenaries sacked the city.’.
Done
Interpretation
Unlink ‘’sfumato’’ (linked already).
Done
Some general issues: the punctuation needs to be checked; the text is rather vague in places (‘’has caused many scholars’’, ‘’In fact, some have taken’’, ‘’the work is often seen as’’).
I went through it, the issue is sometimes sources literally state "some scholars" and some sources make it unclear who exactly is saying what (when there's multiple authors), but I changed what I could.
Words like some, often and many look like weasel words (WP:WEASEL) unless it's clear why they are used, but I would retain them if you are quoting a source, whilst mentioning the source in the text, e.g., 'According to the Galleria Nazionale di Parma, the ambiguity in the work's 'painted-drawing' demeanor has resulted in many theories on the work's purpose and meaning.'. Otherwise the use of these words needs to be avoided. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation, I had heard the term "Weasel words" thrown around before, but wasn't exactly sure what it meant. I think that most of these instances are gone, the only ones I find remaining are the "some art historian ignore... often refrain" (which we discussed before as the source phrases it in the same way) and the one that you mention which I've just now changed. Aza24 (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy editing issues: ‘’ In particular,…’’; ‘’Nagel further compares La Scapigliata with the head studies Leonardo's teacher…’’; ‘...’was admired even while unfinished’’ (already stated); the last sentence.
No you were completely clear! I'm not sure why I put "done" – but I completely forgot to do so with the ISBNs. Unless you're doing them as we speak, I'd be happy to do them. Aza24 (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider hiding the details in the template on LdV.
Both the external links are used as references in the text, and so it isn’t necessary for them to be listed here.
Would rather not for both, since its the only template I think it's appropriate to keep open. With the external links I personally as the reader would be more inclined to notice them and be interested rather then going through the sources to find something, if that makes sense.
I'm placing the article on hold, although to be honest it's some way from meeting the good article criteria of being well written. The other criteria are met. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125 thank you for a helpful and very thorough review, I have addressed all of your comments and implemented almost all of the. I've given an explanation to any comments that I haven't implemented, which if you still disagree with I'm of course open to further discussion.: I'm slowly making my way through Leonardo's paintings, which is a far heftier task than I once assumed. Even though he only made less than 20 paintings, every aspect of them, (dating, attribution, subject, purpose, background, authenticity...) seems to have disagreement. I decided to try and get La Scapigliata out of the way now, since it is undoubtedly on the more controversial side, so I thank you for bearing with me as I try to present information neutrally – that is likely why many sentences were phrased oddly. Anyways, as far as the renaming of the Background section, I'm not sure. I think, if it's okay with you, I might wait for Portrait of a Musician to go to FA so I can see what the consensus is about how I've laid out that article and hopefully use that to serve as a model for La Scapigliata and other Leonardo paintings. Best - Aza24 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 Thanks for your work so far on the review, imo the article is shaping up nicely, in the main because of your efforts. I agree that it's not a particularly easy article, but it's well worth the work. Glad to help with your attempts with all Leonardo's paintings—a daunting task! Amitchell125 (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two images of the painting are puzzling to me:
*Looking at Wikicommons, there is a much larger image here. The larger image would be useful to a reader who wanted to see the painting in detail—I would use it in the infobox instead of the current one.
Fair enough, I changed it. This image seems to be particularly bright, but I think the size makes it worth it. Aza24 (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better imo, the existing one is just too saturated, I'll switch it out. It doesn't seem like there is a definitive version, the existing one, the new one, the older one, the one on the Met and Parma all seem to be noticeably different! Aza24 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Description section image has the caption "Detail of La Scapigliata", but its size is only 54kB—it cannot be magnified—and it doesn't seem to shown more detail than the one in the infobox. Also, it doesn't seem to illustrate the text in the section any more than the current infobox image (you can't tell its true size, the sfumato isn't obvious, and you can't tell it's unfinished). I would remove the image, as it appears to be simply decorative (see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE).
However, I've cropped the 5.58MB image and saved it as a separate file here. it illustrates Leonardo's use of sfumato, as described by Alexander Nagel on p. 11 of "Leonardo and sfumato" (Nagel, Alexander (1993). "Leonardo and sfumato". RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics. 24: 7–20.). It might be useful to use this image in the description section, and to use Nagel to expand the section a little to provide more detail about Leonardo's use of sfumato in the painting. What do you think? Amitchell125 (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That... is a good point. I like the one you've extracted, I'll add another line or two on sfumato, but I'd rather keep most of it in the interpretation section. Aza24 (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125: Thank you for the very helpful review! I'm glad we could improve the clarity and readability of the article immensely. Not to mention very helpful formatting and image changes, best to you! Aza24 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}