Wikipedia:Peer review/Tomb of Philippe Pot/archive1

Tomb of Philippe Pot

One of the most impressive pieces of Funerary art have come across. The hope is to create a poignant and visually comforting article, however need input from people better able to spot gaps and wield English better than I can. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

SC

• I made a few small MOS tweaks here and there in these edits; you may wish to check I've not changed anything I shouldn't have.

Lead

• "dressed in black hoods and act as pallbearers carrying Philippe towards his grave: this doesn't quite work. "who act" would be better
• "running along each sides of the slab: either "each side" or "both/all sides", but not "each sides"

Life and death

• "there-after" isn't hyphenated, according to the OED
• "Philippe's tomb follows": can just be "The tomb follows"
• "Tant L. vaut, était": probably worth a translation here
• "locations within his chapel, and the tomb was": I'd full stop after chapel and go with a new sentence – it's on a different point and the comma splice jars a bit
• "Philippe' commissioned of his tomb in 1477 some 14 years before his eventual death 1493, reflects his desire to convey to prosperity his change in allegiance from the Duke of Burgundy to Louis XI after the battle of Nancy that year." I'm not sure what this is say as it stands. Possibly trimming v slightly and tweaking to say "Philippe's commissioning of his tomb in 1477, some 14 years before his death in 1493, reflected his desire to convey his change in allegiance from the Duke of Burgundy to Louis XI after the battle of Nancy."
• "over his grave Cîteaux Abbey": "over his grave at Cîteaux Abbey"

Description

• "a tunic and silver armour covered with a": a comma after armour would help, I think
• "and the black": no need for the def article
• "mourners with black hooded": "with black hoods", not hooded
• "Dagobert (d. 1235)e": a rogue "e"

Condition and restorations

• "the 19th century, as evidence by": "as evidenced by"
• "There are records of Philippe's feet and the resting animal beside them that were repaired before 1816.": Probably needs a little tweaking along the lines "There are records that show Philippe's feet and the resting animal beside them, were repaired before 1816."
• I think you need to rework "The sculpture transformed the conventional size and placement of pleurants, which since the tomb of Philip the Good had been relatively small figures standing in a niche in the sarcophagus' lower register." a little – it's not entirely clear what you're saying
• "it was photographed": Needs a capital, although as it's the start of a new para, I think I'd be tempted to open with "The tomb was photographed".

Good article – I've been round the Louvre a dozen times before but can't recall it: I'll keep a special eye out for it next time.

I'll leave the spotting gaps in sources to those with a better grasp of art history than me; this is only a prose review, but I hope it helps. Cheers- SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Excellent thanks, very helpful. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by CactiStaccingCrane

I've spotted a potentially unreliable source: http://lesmusardisesdesushi.over-blog.com/article-tombeau-de-philippe-pot-musee-du-louvre-paris-1-63847798.html as a blog by a non-expert (see the author's credentials at https://www.over-blog.com/user/1500706.html, which is concerning). In terms of comprehensiveness, I think that the article is full of details and seems authoritative. Here're a few ideas for finding more sources: full transcription and translation of the tomb's inscriptions, materials used to construct the pleurants and the tomb itself (not the effigy), and how well-known is the tomb to the public. Overall, this is a great article that deserves recognition. CactiStaccingCrane 15:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:CactiStaccingCrane, the suggestion re the inscriptions is v. good....going back through sources. Ceoil (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

ps, have removed lesmusardisesdesushi.over-blog.com - the sources wasn't sanying anything many other earlier sources had clamed. Ceoil (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)