Tomb of Philippe Pot

Tomb of Philippe Pot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Tomb of Philippe Pot/archive1

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A particularly mournful 15th century French tomb sculpture with eight pleurants (weepers) in black hoods carrying the deceased towards his grave. Enjoy! Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

• Marker for further comment, following my PR on this article. I'm working on a couple of other reviews (and busy in RL), but I will make it here are some point soon... (ish!) - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Just watching and waiting for the dust to settle at the moment. Once the editing spurts are completed, I'll be along to do a full runthrough. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be great. Almost there. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think the heavy editing has finished? If so, there are just a few little tweaks needed:

Life and death

• "in June Charles the Bold's daughter": I think a comma after June would help (some may trip up wondering who "June Charles" is

Effigy

• "Lying on a limestone slab, and he is dressed": "and" isn't needed

Pleurants

• "that referring to specific": "refers"

Provenance

• "The tomb passed though a number of owners": "through", not though

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schro; have those sorted now, but am still doing a bit of regigging - noting major, a new source (Scholten) arrived in the post this morning and want to incorporate; should help address some of Borsoka's concerns below - maybe 200 odd words left to be added. Will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am done. About to collapse in a corner, but good points below. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Consdering Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Because France does not have freedom of panorama, all pictures of 3D works in France need a tag for the original work, not just the photo. Ditto Russia

@Nikkimaria have added PD-France to each, which seems to cover it. Ceoil (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Have gone with mentioned that the origional work is PD in France in each commons pic page. Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Donor_panel_of_Philippe_Pot_of_Notre-Dame_de_Dijon.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Les_funérailles_d_Étienne_Chevalier_(cropped)_(cropped).jpg

  Both done. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Charles_Edouard_de_Beaumont_At_the_Tomb_of_Philippe_Pot_or_Au_Solei_1875.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Found a PD copy of the actual painting on the MET website[1]; will replace. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

Happy to give this a review, comments to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

• "Tomb" appears not to require capitalization in the bold text (referred to as "the tomb" throughout the article)
• "two last Dukes of Burgundy:" → recommend "last two"
  • Also, I think another punctuation mark would be better here since the sentence continues after the information that the colon preceded (comma would be my choice, that seems to flow well)
• "Battle of Nancy" is capitalized in its article, does it need caps here?
• "The detailed inscriptions running along the sides" → could simplify with "on the sides" or "written on the sides"
• Could link lead in the lead's 3rd paragraph
• "recorded as completed in 1480" → "recorded as having been completed in 1480"
• "was placed in the 19th century in a private garden in Dijon" → I'd switch the "private garden" and "19th century" bits
• In the infobox, "size" parameter would benefit from some sort of differentiation between measurements and the next label (like a comma or line break)
• My only other infobox comment is that "c." should use {{circa}} since it is the first occurrence per MOS:MISCSHORT

Life and death

• "long term" → "long-term"
• "Battle of Nancy" is only previously linked in the lead so it can be linked here
• "in 1477" is repeated in the first paragraph, the second instance could be replaced with "in the same year"
• does "Burgundian style" need a hyphen since it's a compound adjective?
• Not clear who the "he" is that hired Sluter and for which tomb, is this Philip the Bold or Pot? It's clear sentence 3 is talking about Pot but sentence 2 reads ambiguously.
• In the second paragraph, sentence 3 is essentially a repeat of sentence 1
• "in a style that reaches back" → this is worded a little oddly, perhaps "dates back"?
• "The tomb is first recorded" → present tense sounds odd here
• "given the inscriptions" → "given that the inscriptions" or "since [or because] the inscriptions"
• To avoid duplicating too much information among paragraphs, I would remove "at the battle of Nancy" (since this is mentioned in para 1)
• "It was placed in the chapel..." → comma is unneeded in this sentence since "at the corner of the south arm of the transept" isn't a complete sentence on its own
• I suppose it's not 100% needed but is there a translation of the motto?

• Not in English that I can find, no. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Does "his chapel" refer to Saint-Jean-Baptiste? If so the article does not mention that the chapel was his prior to this

Attribution

• Philippe' → remove apostrophe
• First sentence is missing some words and punctuation, and duplicates the "Battle of Nancy" information from the first section
• "It is probable that" → What "it" refers to is unclear
• "to agree an overall design" → missing word
• Give Moiturier's full name and link him since he's not mentioned previously in the body
• "between distinguish" → words are in the wrong order
• When discussing Marcoux, present tense is used with "notes" but past tense is used with "believed"
• "that it they were likely" → sounds like "it" isn't needed here

More comments to come shortly, just saving my progress. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Description

• "ie can be seen from all sides" → "i.e." needs periods per MOS:LATINABBR
• The last sentence of the first paragraph is a little on the long side - a good place to break it up would be after "iconography", and replacing the dash with a comma would work well
• "The eight mourners on average" → I think starting the sentence with "on average" flows better here
• "that is slightly less than life-sized." → "that is" can be taken out
• "that mostly covering their faces" → missing word
• Dagobert's death date is given in the "Life and death" section so I don't think it's needed here
• Last bit of the first paragraph doesn't appear cited; if it uses ref 24, that can be repeated
• "individually designed" → hyphen here for compound adjective
• I'm not convinced that the numbers to label the mourners are necessary; the representation of the shields can just be listed on their own, though commas do need to be added (if the numbers are kept, mourner #5 is listed as being both on the left and on the right)
• "Their weighty and austere poses gives" → "poses gives" do not agree
• "individualised facial characteristics" → "facial" here is redundant because that part of the sentence is talking about their faces
• Mention of their different heraldic shields is not needed since the prior paragraph is about that
• Picture caption beginning "Left-hand view" is a little hard to understand, rewording it so it doesn't rely on parentheses would be better

Provenance

• Could a job title or description for Louis Boudan be added so the reader knows his significance?
• "French State" is capitalized at the end of para 1 but "state" is lowercase in paragraphs 2 and 4
• The external link labeled "33 rue Berbisey" can be converted to a wikilink by linking to the file like this: [[c:File:Hôtel de Ruffey.jpg|33 rue Berbisey]]
• "The Vesvrotte's" → this plural doesn't need an apostrophe
• The photo caption for Au Solei does not include the accent on the "E" in "Édouard"
• "In August that year" → "In August of that year"

Condition and restorations

• "has been cleaned...in the 19th century" → tense doesn't match
• "Some the letters and words" → missing word
• "C2RMF" abbreviation isn't necessary since it's not used again in the article
• "and the bare stone was cleaned, and additions" → repetition of "and"

Imitations and replicas

• "The monuments's innovations" → is "monuments" here talking just about Pot's tomb?
• "depicted" seems appropriate for the 19th century painting (assuming it was a painting of the tomb) but it seems like the wrong word for the sculpture since it's more of a parody or homage

That should do it for my comments for now - I will go back for another readthrough and look at references soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All points addressed now.[2] Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• Just checking, the "Tomb" is not actually a tomb, but a funerary monument?

  The sources treat them as the same thing. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Knight of the Golden Fleece". Why the upper-case initial letters? Similarly in the main article.
• "Dukes of Burgundy". Ditto for D.
• "Battle of Nancy". And B.
• "he served under both Louis XI and Charles VIII". And Charles VIII would be? Perhaps 'and his son ...'?
• "Philippe Pot was born in 1428 near Beaune in eastern France, as a godson of Philip the Bold." No, he wasn't born as Philip's godson. And Philip needs introducing.
• "He served under the two last Dukes of Burgundy" → ' He served under the last two Dukes of Burgundy'.
• "in eastern France". So it wasn't in Burgundy?
• "his long-term enemy Louis XI". Introduce Louis.

• Done to here. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Philippe was expelled from the Citadel of Lille". Without context, this doesn't really mean anything.

  After defecting to he French, he was expelled from the court at Lille by Mary of Burgundy. Clarifying. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Now clarified. Excellent point. Ceoil (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "placing mourners around effigy". Not grammatical. Perhaps 'effigies'? Or 'an effigy'?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The tomb follows the style of". Which/whose tomb?

• Pot's, done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Philip the Bold's tomb was commissioned in the late 14th century as the first of the Burgundian-style tombs ... Philip the Bold's, which was commissioned in the late 14th century as the first of the now well-known Burgundian tombs".
• "Philippe Pot's monument was the last major tomb of the Burgundians". Do you mean that Pot was the last Burgundian to have a tomb? Or that his was the last in the Burgundian style? Or something else?
• "Philip the Bold's tomb was commissioned in the late 14th century as the first of the Burgundian-style tombs."; "was designed in a style that dates back to the tomb of Philippe Dagobert (d. 1235)." There seems to be a contradiction there.
• "The tomb was first recorded on 28 August 1480". But you go on to say that it may not have been constructed by then. How can it be first recorded if it didn't yet exist?

• Clarified that it was its planning that was recorded. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Caption: "Donor portrait of Philip Pot, unknown artist, Church of Notre-Dame of Dijon". Should that be Philippe?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is he referred to as Philippe rather than Pot?

• Swapped. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "the chapel of Saint-Jean-Baptiste"; "Philippe's motto "Tant L. vaut, était" was painted in several locations within his chapel." The second statement implies that it was Philippe's chapel, rather than Saint-Jean-Baptiste's.

• Clarified; it was Pot's plot . Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "but erroneously gives the year of death 1494 (rather than 1493)". Suggest 'but erroneously gives the year of death as 1494, rather than 1493'.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Moiturier (active 1482–1502) is often suggested as". Do you mean Antoine Le Moiturier. If so, give his name in full and link it. And are you quite sure that he was active after 1495?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "the similarity of their facial types". What is a "facial type"?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "the variation of degree in the quality of sculpture". What?

• Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "parts of the sculpture are so vaguely described". Described by whom and in what document(s)?

• Rephrased as lacking in detail. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "a symbol of fidelity in most Burgundian tombs." "most" - so what does it symbolise in the remainder?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Unusually the effigy does not contain any of the angels usually seen". You don't need both "Unusually" and "usually seen".

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "contemporary Northern European tombs". Why the upper-case N?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The eight mourners on average measure between 134 cm (53 in) and 144 cm (57 in)". You can't say "on average" and then give a range. An average is a specific figure.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "They are carved in black stone". Is anything further known about the nature of this material?

• Polychromed limestone Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "positioned in the lower register". What does that mean?

  Register (art), but removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "that are mostly covering their faces" → 'that mostly cover their faces'.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "playing a ceremonial rite". One does not play a rite. Perhaps 'participating in'?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "that lasted in the region". that took place, or that is recoded in, or similar.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "do not often appear in contemporary sculpture or painting, they appear in well known works". Is it possible to avoid "appear" twice in eight words?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kinship tomb". Why the upper-case K?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "mourners 1–5 and his right mourners 5–8." So mourner 5 appears twice?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Their weighty and austere poses". "weighty"! What does the source say?

• Sources use both heavy and weighty, but removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the article written in UK or US English?
• "Other potential sources include". Do you mean 'influences'?

• Sources is a common term in art history, but changed to influences. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "on a short side of the tomb". What is a short side of a tomb?

  By the head and by the feet. A very common term when describing objects. Ceoil (talk)

• "The tomb's passed though" → 'The tomb passed though'.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The tomb was nationalised during the French Revolution". Could a date be given? If necessary a rough one.

• Before 1791, so have couched as "early years of...". Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "count Richard de Vesvrotte". Upper-case C.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "He placed it in the garden of the Hôtel de Ruffey, under trees at his townhouse". So it was both in the garden of the Hôtel de Ruffey and under trees at Vesvrotte's townhouse?

  Rephrased as "He placed it under trees in the garden of his hôtel particulier (townhouse), the Hôtel de Ruffey at 33 rue Berbisey in Dijon." Ceoil (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The tomb has been cleaned and restored a number of times in the 19th century" → 'The tomb was cleaned and restored a number of times in the 19th century'.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break

There are a startling number of basic grammar issues in this article, to the extent that I do not believe it is ready for FAC. It would certainly have benefitted from a longer stay at PR than the 15 days it received. A trip to to GoCE would probably also have been helpful. @SchroCat and PCN02WPS: I would be interested in your opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild I am on the newer side to FAC but I would tend to agree with you - most of my comments were about grammatical or prose issues, and we found a lot of the same errors (mourner 5 listed twice, "his" chapel, etc). Some of the other stuff I found (transposed or missing words, misspellings, etc) indicates that a little more time copyediting or proofreading would be beneficial. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to note most of the issues were resolved this afternoon. The maimed will be done in a few hours. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love the Freudian typo. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The irony (and double meaning) re spelling on an FAC I'M being called out for spelling is not lost on me. Anyway, I do appreciate all the effort and help you and PCN02WPS have given, and take you point re PR/GOCE. All up to date except re the point on the Philip the Bold stuff, which will address in morning evening, afterwhich can do a full proof read, and then ping for a revsit from ye both. Ceoil (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re irony: Indeed, God will know her own. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, I'm butting in and will probably embarrass Ceoil. This is the first FAC I've read in a year, perhaps two - can't honestly remember. The long list of nitpicks isn't really how FAC should work or used to work, and doesn't actually set a great example coming from a coord. All that said, given the that the spelling issue has been a known issue for well over a decade the thing to do is help, not hinder. I'm willing to assist. I can attempt to address what you refer to as "basic grammar issues". There are a few walls of text above, so if you and PCN02WPS could please strike what you consider resolved, and please highlight what still needs to be done in that area. Ceoil can address any substantive comments that are posted. Does that work for you all? Pinging Ceoil, Gog the Mild and PCN02WPS. Victoria (tk) 18:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. That is not how FAC works, dumping responsibility for high lighting details of issues back on the reviewers. If Ceoil, and any other editors they would care to have assist them, could iron out the issues above and any other similar ones, then let me know, I will relook at the article and make any fresh comments which then seem appropriate.

So reviewers no longer strike comments? Anyway, you've been quite clear as to your position. Thanks. Unwatching now. Victoria (tk) 21:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, just to reiterate, again, the lists above were mostly focused on very trivial items (a lot of preferences re caps, commas etc), and were fixed with in minutes. I diont want perception to be that the article was flawed, and maybe a withdrawal, as Gog suggested, or at least a refresh, is best at this time. Ceoil (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. No they're not. 2. I cannot see where I have suggested withdrawal.

[1] Actually yes they are with two exceptions re Philip the Good as pointed out!! Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I read this FAC this morning that was exactly the perception I had. But when working through the article last night found only a few minor mistakes that were quickly resolved. If copyediting is what's wanted you've done a lot and I've done some and frankly were I reviewing I'd support. If they still want more I'm happy to address the trivial issues only because I think the tone is a bit snarky and I'm disappointed to see that from a coord who sets an example. If you're good to carry on, I'll happily rescind the offer and happily step back away from Wikipedia. It should be fun, which it is when stuck in a small corner, but there are definitely some unwelcome edges that I'm happy to avoid. Victoria (tk) 19:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my pov, the review has been *most* beneficial, I just dont want to be tarred with a SNOW quick fail.[3][4] Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I am pleased if it has helped; that, obviously I hope, was my intention. Ping me when you're ready for me to have another look. As an experienced nominator you will be aware that a (unrecused) coordinator will only even consider archiving a nomination if there is a formal oppose coupled with a recommendation of withdrawal, so crack on. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the Philip the Good stuff, took long as had to gather hardcovers. To note Vic did a top to bottom ce today, which I think solved a lot, incl the brit vs us spelling thing, highlighted above (something I dont have a clue about except adding a "u" is always good. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Gog, I'm cracking on - your specific points have been met, but some expansion, relating to your points, are coming from Borsoka's review below - will ping when ready for your further points / ay or nay. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As update, am not ignoring, have addressed major points (yours and others), going to give it a day or too before asking you to pull the trigger, which will hopefully be a "go" shot in the air rather than a bullet through my eyes )!! Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I can't have a two-fer? :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you run for RFA. Then you can do what the hell you want. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely - I have a fear of responsibility. Mah wa ha ha ha ... Gog the Mild (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm happy enough now for you to look over again. Am somewhat embarrassed by the earlier spelling/MOS stuff, and take the point re a longer PR, but would appreciate a 2nd view. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

• Philippe Pot was born in 1428 near Beaune in Burgundy and was a godson of Philip the Bold. Consider mentioning the Duchy of Burgundy instead of Burgundy (because Burgundy is ambiguous). Philip the Bold is actually Philip the Good. Consider referring to him as "Duke Philip the Good" to introduce him. You could also link the Duchy of Burgundy.
• Delink "Burgundian court" since the court is not identical with the duchy.
• Why "seigneur" instead of lord, why "a seigneur" instead of "the seigneur", and why "La Roche" instead of "La Rochepot"? You may also want to mention that his possessions were located in Burgundy.
• Philip the Bold is actually Philip the Good. Philip the Good and Charles the Bold were not the last dukes of Burgundy although they were the last dukes of Burgundy who actually ruled the Duchy of Burgundy (I refer to Philip the Fair, and Louis, Duke of Burgundy who both held the title of Duke of Burgundy). Perhaps you could introduce Charles the Bold as Philip the Good's son and successor. Borsoka (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Charles the Bold was not defeated by Louis XI in the Battle of Nancy.
• The dynasty did not die out with the dead of Charles the Bold as he was succeeded by his daughter Mary of Burgundy in most of his realms.
• Perhaps you want to mention that after Charles the Bold's death Louis XI claimed the duchy against Mary and occupied it to add a context for Pot's "involvement with Louis". You could also mention that Mary otherwise retained much of her inheritence to give a context. I assume Pot's "involvement with Louis" was related to the fact that his patrinomy was located in the Duchy of Burgundy, occupied by the French soon after Mary's ascension.
• I assume Pot was expelled not only from the court but from Mary's realms as well.
• I assume Louise is Louis.
• Maximilian was also Mary's co-ruler, which is relevant in the context of the sentence referring to his negotiations.
• That August?
• Alternatively you may want to summarize Pot's life without mentioning much of the history of Burgundy.
• The truce was signed on 8th September, and from its success Pot eventually served under Louis's son Charles VIII. I do not understand "from its success" in the context. Furthermore, Charles VIII was king from 1483 (not from 1477).
• Consider mentionning when Pot died to complete his short biography, perhaps also mentioning the cause of his death.
• The Burgundian-style tombs began with the late 14th century tomb of Philip the Bold, designed by the sculptor Claus Sluter. It's distinctive mourners were often copied over the following centuries.[6][7] Pot's monument was the last of the important Burgundian tombs. Consider changing the sequence of the three sentences, because the reference to Burgundian-style tombs came without any introduction. Consider moving the three sentences to the following section (section "Attribution").
• Consider also moving the last paragraph of the section "Life and death of Philip Plot" to section "Attribution" because the first sentence of the latter section seems to repeat previously mentioned information.
• Pot paid the abbot of Cîteaux Abbey, Jean de Cirey, one thousand livres for a burial place... Where?
• Use the "lang" template when mentioning Pot's motto and consider translating it. Borsoka (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, this is an excellent content review. Most points addressed [5], and will let you know when fully complete, but it may be the weekend - want to do more on the bio (weaving Mary and Maximilian in more) and evolution of the style of the Burgundian tombs. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revisit pls - have fleshed out the life and death section, although mainly indirectly via art historical sources on Isabella's and Mary's tombs. I'm not finding much direct bio info. The Philip the Bold stuff should be clear enough now but willing to listen to complaints. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

A lovely article. Just a few comments, mostly proofreading:

• Life and death of Philippe Pot

• "signed on 8th September" – the MoS bids us write "8 September" and not "8th September".
• "Louis's son Charles VIII" – after a silent s as in "Louis", the customary possessive form is a plain apostrophe rather than s-apostrophe-s.

• Commission and attribution

• "customary for a secular burial" – I'm unsure what a secular burial is: if it means the burial of a member of the laity rather than of a cleric it might be clearer to say so.

• Effigy

• "Pot's effigy is molded" – as the article is in BrE (armour, emphasise, nationalised) it would be as well to use the BrE "moulded".

• Pleurants

• "a panted and gilded heraldic shield that referring to specific members" – two things here: "panted" should be "painted", presumably; and the "that" is not wanted.
• "the de Montagus' and de Nesli's" – for the plain plurals of names, possessive apostrophes are not wanted.

• Inscriptions

• "l’an mil"" – curly inverted comma should be straight (MoS). This is the only one I spotted, but it might be as well to check for any others.

• Provenance

• "the French state too ownership" – "took" rather than "too".
• "was employed to relocated it" – "to relocate" and not "to relocated".

That's all from me. This article makes me long to see the tomb, and I shall make of point of doing so when next in Paris. Tim riley talk 10:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - thanks for these. Think I have them all now. Ceoil (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. Happy to support promotion to FA. Clear, readable, evidently balanced and neutral, well referenced and beautifully illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 14:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers

Interesting read, it has given me some ideas for my own idealised funerary monument. I have made a few tweaks, I hope you like them, if not, well this is a wiki.

If he was born in 1428 and died in 1493 he would have been about 65 years old not 49. The lede has him commissioning the monument when he was 49 and then living for another 13 years, this adds up to 62 which is a lot closer to a 1428 birth and a 1493 death, but still looks anomalous. Later it say "His year of death is erroneously recorded as "l'an mil ccccxci[v]" (in the year 1493)" which contradicts the 1493 death, though MCCCCXCIV is actually 1494, which would indeed be anomalous if he died in 1493. So I've changed that to "in the year 1494"

Re: "Philippe Pot was born in 1428 near Beaune in the Duchy of Burgundy. He was a godson of Philip the Good and was raised and educated at the Burgundian court.[3] Philippe served under the politically fraught years of the last two Valois Dukes of Burgundy, Philip the Good (b. 1396) and Charles the Bold (b. 1433). During this period, he rose to become a knight of the Golden Fleece and lord of the La Rochepot and Thorey-sur-Ouche communes in Côte-d'Or, north-eastern France" Beaune was then in the Duchy of Burgundy and is now in France, La Rochepot and Thorey-sur-Ouche are indeed now in France but whether they were then in France or Burgundy is probably relevant to this article. There are a couple of ways to describe these sort of historic changes in an article, but consistency is key, and I don't think we want the reader to think that in this era Beaune was in Burgundy but La Rochepot and Thorey-sur-Ouche were in France.

Re "The coats of arms on his shield and on those of the mourners, are painted in gold, red and black, and represent the insignia of his ancestral families" Are they just paint, in which case it would be interesting to know how the various restorers came to the current choices of colour and shapes, or are the designs carved onto the stone as one photograph seems to show? In either case, three colours is a very limited palette to cover 8 heraldic shields, has anyone commented on that and is this part of the reason why two designs are now unidentified? ϢereSpielChequers 08:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]