Talk:Fra Angelico

This article is a good article. This means the community feels it is written well.

VG?

I observed that Pmlineditor has removed the VG without any explantion (other than a statement). Politer than the last person who removed it without even an edit summary.

However, it warrants some discussion on the talk page by way of explanation of the action. Given that the article is well-researched, referenced, well-written, well-illustrated and well laid-out.

Amandajm (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

He did not remove the "VG" he removed the "PVG." The "PVG" or proposed very good article template is what was on the article. He removed it (and others did too) because this is not currently being discussed as a possible very good article at WP:PVGA. If you feel it is ready to be a very good article, then add the template to the article, then add the discussion about the article to the WP:PVGA page. This article was last discussed there in January 2009 and did not pass. You can see that discussion here: Wikipedia:Proposed_very_good_articles/Archive_4#Fra_Angelico_2. Either way (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to nominate the article for VGA status, please feel free to do so. You'll need to make yourself aware of the process at WP:PVGA. The action carried out by Pmlineditor (given a moment's research) was perfectly acceptable. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies! Amandajm (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Hey there, I saw this article was proposed for Good Article and thought there were some flaws. Hope you can find time to fix them soon. Okay then, I should begin in my nitpicking. *rubs palms together* Brace yourself!

• "He has been called this for a long time, because he was thought to be blessed by God who gave him the talent of painting, and also because he was such a good and holy man." The part in this sentence where it claims he was "such a good and holy man" seems to need a reference or quote, as it sounds slightly against our policy of having a neutral point of view.

 DoneAdded a ref to support this view. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Fra Angelico had a brother called Benedetto who was also a Dominican friar. Fra Benedetto painted illuminated manuscripts." The first time Fra Angelico's brother is mentioned, I believe his whole name should appear, instead of his whole name appearing in the next sentence.

Not done - this is quite OK, his name was Benedetto, but his Dominican title is Fra Benedetto. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Between 1418 and 1436, Fra Angelico painted an altarpiece for the church in Fiesole, which has been damaged." It would make more clarified sense if you could explain why the altarpiece was "damaged". The sentence also sounds a little awkward as above. I don't think it would hurt to change it into a sentence such as "...church in Fiesole, but after that it became damaged because of <insert reason here>."

 Done added reasons and refs - --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "...and is a large and magnificent piece of work." This is sounds POV-ish as well.

 Done - well large is not POV, but found support and ref for magnificent. --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• The paragraph about Cosimo needs a few refs behind all the interesting facts up about what he liked to do.

 Done - --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Cosimo was so delighted when he saw how Fra Angelico could paint that he encouraged him to paint lots of beautiful pictures for the convent." This, I'm sorry to say, needs a reference as well. Words such as "so delighted" and "beautiful" are best to be avoided when writing articles, especially as in GAs.

 Done - --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Unfortunately, the chapel was later demolished." Unfortunately? Not everybody may think it unfortunate. Remember, every single sentence has to be worded the right way to sound neutral... Some may not even believe in fortune.

 Done and added reason for the demolition. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Fra Angelico never wanted to be important, and even though he was so talented he never put himself above other people. He thought his most important job was caring for others. He always prayed before he picked up his brushes to paint, and he never made any changes to his pictures later, because he believed that the Holy Spirit was guiding him." This sounds very dramatic and beautiful, but the parts like "...he was so talented..." is slightly POV, and it would sound better with sources.

• The other websites should be written by the {{citeweb}} template.

 Done - --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, is this too long? Well, take your time in fixing them, I'm almost always free to be notified when you're finished here. I'll see if I can find any more small problems when you've finished with the present ones. =) Your loving editor, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 05:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work, dear Peterdownunder! I see you've had almost all of my comments fixed. Although I knew quite well of your diligent work, I never imagined such a fast reply. :) Once again, thanks. I believe that's all. With heartfelt love, Bella ^{tête-à-tête} 06:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

RS

What makes "http://www.artist-biography.info/artist/fra_giovanni_angelico/" a reliable source? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And the same goes for "http://www.casasantapia.com/art/fraangelico/annunciation.htm"? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)