Talk:Venus and Cupid with a Honeycomb

Venus and Cupid with a Honeycomb
Venus and Cupid with a Honeycomb
Artist	Cranach Lucas also knwon as Cranach The Eldest
Year	1520
Subject	Venus, Cupid and the honeycomb
Dimensions	169 cm × 67 cm (67 in × 26 in)
Location	Villa Borghese, Rome
	Latitude: 41.9085 Longitude: 12.4887.

Educational Project

This page is part of an Educational Project by students of LIUC, Italy, with a course page at: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/LIUC_-_Universit%C3%A0_Cattaneo/Digital_Technology_(Autumn_2022) The users of the group are new to the Wikipedia platform and are learning to edit following Wikipedia rules. They are open to any advice on improvements of the page in conformity to Wikipedia requirements and guidelines, and any help useful for the enhancement of the page will be gladly accepted. The student User names are:

LIUC7Mariasole03
LIUC7Valerija05
LIUC7Andrea21
LIUC7Martina12
LIUC7Pietro03
LIUC7Michele04
LIUC7Giorgia09

Limelightangel (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use Italics in article titles for paintings

The title convention here and elsewhere is for italics and capitalization, with no painter name in brackets unless there are identically named paintings by different artists (see 'Virgin on the Rocks', 'Mona Lisa', 'The Hay Wain', etc.)."

In addition to the convention on Wikipedia for other paintings, see also: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(works_of_art) , specifically: "Use common name when feasible. Articles on works of art should be titled by the work’s common names, like other topics. Works of art that have official names usually use that name as the article title, (italicized, e.g. The Artist as Hephaestus) unless some other name is more common." It has been fixed by adding at the top of the page markup - do not delete this. Limelightangel (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PARAGRAPHS

Intro: few general info about the painting
History of the painting
Analysis of the painting according to articistic point of view
References
External links

LIUC7Mariasole03 (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at some of the many similar pages for indicative sections and sub-sections for a painting article. These can even be copied across and then edited for this topic. Limelightangel (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Format the section headings in Talk consistently, using the same case (not all UPPERCASE) Limelightangel (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a description paragraph and transferred the info wrote by Limelightangel from "history" to the "introduction". LIUC7Andrea21 (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sub-paragraph under the main one "Description" LIUC7Martina12 (talk)

I added a sub-paragraph called "Inspirations" under the main one "History". LIUC7Martina12 (talk)

don't use Talk to simply report edits. These are clear in the Page History. Limelightangel (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The page needs an Infobox. There are a range of different Infobox templates for pages on paintings, including a general one Template:Infobox_artwork, and ones for specific types of art. There may other options. Have a look at: Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes. You can see how it has been used on other pages about paintings by inspecting the markup (Edit) on these pages e.g. Mona_Lisa. It is not necessary to complete all the fields in this template. There are predefined rules for the content you can add to each field in the template. See the Infobox help at: Help:Infobox Limelightangel (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LIUC7Mariasole03 (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC) LIUC7Martina12 (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed some info in the Infobox and added the picture. LIUC7Andrea21 (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

don't use Talk to simply report edits. These are clear in the Page History. Limelightangel (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft review, 21/11/22

fix and avoid basic grammar errors e.g. 'german'; 'one of its most known version is...'; etc.
improve and fix referencing issues e.g. refs. 2 & 5 are duplicates (use ref name in the cite template); ref 6. use the original source as a reference, not Google Books; etc.
you could mark the original and incorrectly title draft page for speedy deletion
there is no clear page structure (sections, sub-sections, order) - see similar pages
the specific painting by Cranach needs relating better to his other works on this theme, and to related paintings by other artists on the theme and subject, e.g. by Hans Brosamer, etc. This could be a section on it's own, with related links and references. You could also clarify the ambiguity in the name, with it sometime being called other things e.g. Venus and Cupid stealing honeycomb (https://arthive.com/lucascranachtheeder/works/199560~Venus_and_Cupid_stealing_honeycomb ), if this is the same painting?

Limelightangel (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Introduction

I wouldn't put Cranach's picture in the introduction LIUC7Andrea21 (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

correct. The convention is not to do this. Limelightangel (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft review, 26/11/22

needs a better section for External links. See Wikipedia:External_links, etc. The external links need translating in to English with the Italian in brackets. They also need creating correctly as links (see error messages). They also need to be above the References

needs a correct See Also section (other wiki pages NOT already used in the article). Understand how this is used. See the help resources, and similar pages e.g.Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#"See_also"_section. There is currently a See Also header but with irrelevant text, and also an incorrectly located 'see also' link at the very top of the page.

you will need to add Categories to your page - see similar pages, and use Help:Category.

references 9 and 10 are incorrect; if you state 'According to Kristina Herrmann Fiore' this content needs a reference.

the image next to the intro. summary needs to be moved.

images: the existing related paintings by Cranach need to be located with the section/text related to his use of the theme. The images of related paintings by other artists should go on the existing pages for these artists/paintings. Check if these exist, and if so, remove these images and link out to the relevant pages from the text. If these do not exist, you could use 1 or 2 to support a text section on the broad theme, but there is still an issue of relevance to the specific page topic. You need to list the series of related paintings by Cranach, if this does not duplicate content on the page about him - check.

summary: this needs to provide a better summary of the topic and it's notability. The text here on the inscription belongs to the History section. The similar painting mentioned here belongs in a later section. Use the help resources and similar pages to see what goes in the summary (and remove the image here).

over-linking: you have duplicate links (e.g. Cranach, Luther, Venus, Wittenberg, Cupid, etc.) that need removing, and are over-linking (e.g. venereal disease). Use the help resources and avoid this e.g. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking. You link out once when you first use the linked text, but not subsequently.

copied content: the translated inscriptions and adjacent text is copied from the page on Cupid_complaining_to_Venus. Note also that this existing is not a particularly good page example to base this article on, particularly the references.

some image captions need improving on the page for clarity and relevance to the article, using the alt= markup for the image e.g. 'Lines of text taken directly from the poem'. It is unclear what poem this relates to, nor it's relevance to the topic. some image captions need English translations of painting's names.

grammar/style: remove things like 'in addition'; 'however'; 'nevertheless'; etc.

structure: some content is in the wrong places e.g. the second paragraph in Modern analysis does not relate to modern analysis.

the text in the incorrectly titled See Also section has no references and is of unclear relevance to the topic.

grammar issues e.g. 'Related paintings a Venus with Cupid stealing honey '; 'frankfurt'; 'For case, further than...'; etc.

use of images: the description section could be better supported with an image.

Limelightangel (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Message for Student editors

Please advise your students to follow some of the basic rules outlined in the Manual of Style, especially those on bolding, duplicate links, and overlinked terms. They have also removed valid ^{[citation needed]} tags from statements without providing a source. I've been reverting quite a few of their edits over the past few hours and see that there's still hundreds that need to be checked for compliance. SounderBruce 10:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

   Many thanks. I will reinforce this with them, be having meetings with them to review their recent work and the many issues. They have repeatedly had this advice but clearly need it emphasizing. Thanks for the feedback. Limelightangel (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft review, 04/12/22

needs a better section for External links. See Wikipedia:External_links, etc. The external links need to be clearer ('official website' of what?) and better. See also Manual_of_Style/Linking#Link_titles.

references: many have no publication dates (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19); ref. 13 is in UPPER CASE; many have no publishers. Some have no date accessed; Use the Cite > Website template properly, and extract the required information from the web pages. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Web_pages. Refs. 7 and 8 are to Scholar, not the original secondary source (use Cite>Journal template); ref. 18 has no author, publisher or URL; ref. 3 appears to be a book but has no ISBN or publisher, etc. Ref. 14 has no author (Paul Jeromack); etc. If you state 'past research has established', and 'according to the critics' these need clarity and references to evidence them.

See Also section: see Wikipedia:See_alsos and Manual_of_Style/Layout#"See_also". Understand how these differ from in-text wiki links and from 'external links'.

Categories': 'countries in Europe' is irrelevant here. See Help:Category.

Content relevance: the section on 'art destruction' has no references, links and unclear relevance to the page topic. It relates to the page on Cranach, not this specific painting.

some image captions need improving on the page for clarity and relevance to the article, using the alt= markup for the image e.g. It is unclear what poem the cation relates to, nor it's relevance to the topic. 'Galleria borghese', 'portrait By' and 'the painting date of creation' are grammatically incorrect'. This is important for page clarity/relevance, and because they are located on WikiMedia, without the context of this page.

content: several sections have large blocks of text with a single reference e.g. Inspiration, Modern analysis, Paint layers, etc. These appear to be overly lengthy summaries from single sources, rather than summary synthesis from several on the relevant sub-topic.

images: the existing related paintings by Cranach need to be located with the section/text related to his use of the theme. The images of related paintings by other artists should go on the existing pages for these artists/paintings. Check if these exist, and if so, remove these images and link out to the relevant pages from the text. If these do not exist, you could use 1 or 2 to support a text section on the broad theme, but there is still an issue of relevance to the specific page topic. You need to list the series of related paintings by Cranach, if this does not duplicate content on the page about him - check.

grammar/style: The second sentence on execution date is unclear. There are extensive issues related to inappropriate style, subjectivity and bias, related to direct copying from secondary sources. See Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources. These include: 'actually'; 'notwithstanding this'; 'notwithstanding'; 'in actuality' (twice); 'the couplet wants to convey'; clearly reveals'; just mentioned'; 'this canon of beauty'; 'countless copies'; 'today' (three times); 'unsurprisingly'; 'the world over'; 'unparalleled'; 'quite risky proposal'; 'additionally'; 'as can be seen'; 'to be more specific'; 'in fact' (three times); 'obvious to the critics'; 'however'; 'everything is intensely real'; 'expresses his genius'; 'despite this'; 'will draw inspiration' (tense); 'made his first paintbrush strokes'; 'as is widely known'; 'like the Venus in the image' (which image?); 'very same years'; 'at the very least'; 'allowed Venus and Cupid into the...gallery'; 'the paintings conservancy'; 'visitors are now able to view it'; 'impressive collection'; 'lately'; 'stressed out tourists'; '[paint]'; 'typically'; 'we noticed'; 'upon scrutiny turns out'; etc. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style.

over-linking: see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking e.g. crane, classical,etc.

inconsistent and incorrect use of italics, including the painting name and the names of other works. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_type.

structure: the section on Inspiration in History is not about the history of the painting, and has a confusing relationship with the earlier section on mythological origins. Both sections appear to relate to the pre-creation of the work, not it's actual 'history'. Perhaps this needs a single section on Origins/inspiration, either at the start of the history section or, better, as a separate section? The execution date section could be part of history. The sentence related to analysis of the painting dimensions relates to technical studies, not restorations.

what do the initials WAFI stand for, exactly? Find the information and a reference.

Limelightangel (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We believe the section related to the description of the painting is much more relevant than the one related to history, therefore we'd prefer to leave the structure of our draft page as it is

I tried to fix all the references but there are still some empty fields.