Talk:Leonardo da Vinci

PVGA comments - the Lead section

• "...genius." - is that a job title? Isn't it terribly subjective, and a poor way to start an article? I would assume we mean polymath?
  • Done
• Five paras in lead is too many. Four max.
  • Done
• "Many people think that..." followed by "Many people think that..." - okay, so this is Simple English but do we need to make it repetitive Simple English?
  • Done
• "The Art historian " - why is art capitalised?
  • not found
• Are the following words simple enough not to be linked or explained...?
  • nature
  • art historian
  • personality
  • superhuman
  • mysterious
  • remote
  • noblemen
  • invention
    • I think all are simple to understand
• Starting a sentence with "But.." is a little unusual.
  • Done
• Notebook is one word.
  • Done
• "...drew in them every day. ..." really?
  • Done
• Caption - "Possible self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci" uncited speculation... not encyclopedic at all.
  • Done

That's just a really quick view on the lead... if there's further interest I'll happily review other sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the concerns are fixed now. All is  Done with one exception. --Barras (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

More comments

• Headings should all use en-dashes for year ranges, not hyphens.
  •  Fixed
• Expand lead image caption to mention it's a self-portrait if you can prove it!
  • Hard to find a good source, so I've changed the picture.
• "proudly wrote down" prove he was proud! And what do you mean by "wrote down the details"?
  •  Fixed
• "Leonardo's earliest known drawing, the Arno Valley, (1473) - Uffizi" what does the hyphen followed by Uffizi mean? Explain it.
  •  Fixed
• First three paras of Verrochio's workshop section unreferenced.
• " August 5, 1473" different date format from the others in the article. Be consistent.
  •  Fixed
• You don't say where the Last Supper is displayed?
  •  Fixed (at leasr I hope)
• "and bears ." remove space - there are others in that list.
  •  Fixed
• Web refs could use proper accessdates, publication dates, publishers, works, author names, etc...

That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Genius? You ask the question, is that a job description? Yes and no. When he sold himself into the service of Ludovico, it was as a genius, rather than anything else. If what you want is a "job description" then what he actually did, most of the time, and was paid to do, was to design ephemera, ie stage sets, costumes, floats, parades, spectacles and so on.

Leonardo is famous for being a genius. For about 400 years he was renowned as an absolute genius of a painter, and all his other skills were forgotten.

"Polymath" is the latest word used on Wkipedia to avoid using the dreaded "Peacock word" "genius". This discretion is all carried much too far. Leonardo wasn't famous as a "polymath" until Wikipedia got hold of him.

The thing that offends me about this overused wikiword is that it isn't simple, and it doesn't convey the real nature of the man. Leonardo was not simply expert at a great number of things. He was incredibly clever at them. He had a burning curiosity to push forward in every finite field of knowledge. When I say finite, I mean that, unlike most of his highly intelligent contemporaries, he didn't sit around and philosophise about things.

There is no reason why any kid should have to jump from the very first sentence of an article to look uo "polymath" when almost every kid knows what a genius is.

There was a bit of an argument on the Wikipedia Leonardo page over whether the words "genius" and "famous" could be used. The word "genius" is referenced with (from memory) nine different authors. As for "famous", the context in which it is used is mainly a discussion of Leonardo's fame, our a statement such as "The Mona Lisa is the most famous portrait in the world."

In many other articles, the word "famous" is used unnecessarily. If a person has an encyclopedia article about them, then it's probably because they are "famous" in some field or another. But Leonardo's fame was like the fame of Elvis Presley. You have to stop and ask the question "Why did he become so famous that people raved about him? This has become common for an entertainer but is a very rare thing, for a painter!

Amandajm (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A fascinating discourse, albeit nine months after my original comment. But in summary, you'd prefer the word genius to polymath? I'm more than happy, if you can provide those nine refs, to use the word genius. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference was already in place, and still is: Vasari, Boltraffio, Castiglione, "Anonimo" Gaddiano, Berensen, Taine, Fuseli, Rio, Bortolon etc

Amandajm (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

the style of the article

"smart guy"? "good at TONS of things"? I thought it was an encyclopaedia, not a teen magazine, no matter it is Simple English or not. — This unsigned comment was added by 77.45.245.228 (talk • changes) on 15:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC).

Mona Lisa

Mona Lisa's eyes are more crying than laughing. Only her mouth seems to be smiling. According to Vasari she was not a really happy woman. Singer and minstrels entertained Mona Lisa to make her smile while she posed for this portrait. Vasari, in particular, relates how Leonardo had used every trick he could to win from the sitter her smile. This is one of the reasons why the painting "seems to be full of mystery". Vasari did not mention smiling eyes. Zaqxswer (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Evolution  ?

First time I read that Lenoardo had theorized about Evolution? The "full English" WP page does not contain the word Evolution. I suggest deleting this statement unless a ref is added ASAP MarmotteNZ (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC).