Question: who did a detailed analysis in 1933 to  revealed that earlier restorers had "acted with a great deal of restraint"?
About the article "Mona Lisa", section "Conservation".

Candidate passages:
The "Mona Lisa" has survived for more than 500 years, and an international commission convened in 1952 noted that "the picture is in a remarkable state of preservation."
This is partly due to the result of a variety of conservation treatments the painting has undergone.
A detailed analysis in 1933 by Madame de Gironde revealed that earlier restorers had "acted with a great deal of restraint."
Nevertheless, applications of varnish made to the painting had darkened even by the end of the 16th century, and an aggressive 1809 cleaning and revarnishing removed some of the uppermost portion of the paint layer, resulting in a washed-out appearance to the face of the figure.
Despite the treatments, the "Mona Lisa" has been well cared for throughout its history, and although the panel's warping caused the curators "some worry", the 2004–05 conservation team was optimistic about the future of the work.
That part of the restoration in the Sistine Chapel which has caused the most concern is the ceiling, painted by Michelangelo.
The emergence of the brightly coloured Ancestors of Christ from the gloom sparked a reaction of fear that the processes being employed in the cleaning were too severe.
Despite warnings, the work on the ceiling proceeded and, according to critics such as James Beck, their worst fears were confirmed once the ceiling was completed.
The cause for dissent lies in the analysis and understanding of the techniques utilised by Michelangelo, and the technical response of the restorers to their understanding of those techniques.
A close examination of the frescoes of the lunettes convinced the restorers that Michelangelo worked exclusively in "buon fresco"; that is, the artist worked only on freshly laid plaster and each section of work was completed while the plaster was still in its fresh state.
In other words, Michelangelo did not work "a secco"; he did not come back later and add details onto the dry plaster.
The restorers, by assuming that the artist took a universal approach to the painting, took a universal approach to the restoration.
A decision was made that all of the shadowy layer of animal glue and "lamp black", all of the wax, and all of the overpainted areas were contamination of one sort or another: smoke deposits, earlier restoration attempts and painted definition by later restorers in attempt to enliven the appearance of the work.
Based on this decision, according to Arguimbau's critical reading of the restoration data that has been provided, the chemists of the restoration team decided upon a solvent that would effectively strip the ceiling down to its paint-impregnated plaster.
After treatment, only that which was painted "buon fresco" would remain.
According to critics, the inherent problem with this approach is that it relied heavily upon an assumption that Michelangelo only painted "buon fresco", that he was always satisfied with the result at the end of the day, and that in four and a half years spent on the ceiling, he stuck exclusively to one approach, and never made small alterations or added details.
Arguimbau, on his website, quotes Colalucci, the head of the team, as contradicting himself on this matter.
A summary of the relevant statements of Colalucci, in the order that they occur in the Appendix entitled "Michelangelo's colours uncovered" is as follows: The elderly restorers who had taken part in the restoration of the 1930s were interviewed as part of the preparatory process.
They claimed that Michelangelo worked over the frescoes "a secco" using "velature" or glazes as a binder.
Colalucci rejects this, stating that Michelangelo worked exclusively in "buon fresco".
Colalucci then contradicts this by stating that Michelangelo had worked "a secco", but "to a minimal degree" and "not at all in the lunettes".
Colalucci then talks of Michelangelo's "rigorous maintenance" of "buon fresco" technique, contradicting this by describing the "a secco" retouchings that Michelangelo made to the shoulder of Eleazar and the foot of Reboam, both of which are in the lunettes.
He then says that Michelangelo worked in "buon fresco" with "no "pentimenti" proper", (pentimenti means the changes) but only small corrections in fresco.
The on-going criticism has been that the restorers presumed to know what end result the master was seeking to achieve in every separate case across the ceiling, and by what method he sought to achieve it.
The disagreements about this have been vociferous and are unresolved. 
The Sistine Chapel's ceiling restoration began on 7 November 1984.
The restoration complete, the chapel was re-opened to the public on 8 April 1994.
The part of the restoration in the Sistine Chapel that has caused the most concern is the ceiling, painted by Michelangelo.
The emergence of the brightly coloured Ancestors of Christ from the gloom sparked a reaction of fear that the processes being employed in the cleaning were too severe and removed the original intent of the artist.
The problem lies in the analysis and understanding of the techniques utilised by Michelangelo, and the technical response of the restorers to that understanding.
A close examination of the frescoes of the lunettes convinced the restorers that Michelangelo worked exclusively in "buon fresco"; that is, the artist worked only on freshly laid plaster and each section of work was completed while the plaster was still in its fresh state.
In other words, Michelangelo did not work "a secco"; he did not come back later and add details onto the dry plaster.
The restorers, by assuming that the artist took a universal approach to the painting, took a universal approach to the restoration.
A decision was made that all of the shadowy layer of animal glue and "lamp black", all of the wax, and all of the overpainted areas were contamination of one sort or another: smoke deposits, earlier restoration attempts, and painted definition by later restorers in an attempt to enliven the appearance of the work.
Based on this decision, according to Arguimbau's critical reading of the restoration data that has been provided, the chemists of the restoration team decided upon a solvent that would effectively strip the ceiling down to its paint-impregnated plaster.
After treatment, only that which was painted "buon fresco" would remain. 
In 1577, cartographer Gerardus Mercator wrote a letter containing the only detailed description of the contents of a geographical text about the Arctic region of the Atlantic, possibly written over two centuries earlier by one Jacob Cnoyen.
Cnoyen had learned that in 1364, eight men had returned to Norway from the Arctic islands, one of whom, a priest, provided the King of Norway with a great deal of geographical information.
Books by scholars such as Carl Christian Rafn early in the 19th century revealed hints of reality behind this tale.
A priest named Ivar Bardarsson, who had previously been based in Greenland, did turn up in Norwegian records from 1364 onward and copies of his geographical description of Greenland still survive.
Furthermore, in 1354, King Magnus Eriksson of Sweden and Norway had issued a letter appointing a law officer named Paul Knutsson as leader of an expedition to the colony of Greenland, to investigate reports that the population was turning away from Christian culture.
Another of the documents reprinted by the 19th century scholars was a scholarly attempt by Icelandic Bishop Gisli Oddsson, in 1637, to compile a history of the Arctic colonies.
He dated the Greenlanders' fall away from Christianity to 1342, and claimed that they had turned instead to America.
Supporters of a 14th-century origin for the Kensington runestone argue that Knutson may therefore have travelled beyond Greenland to North America, in search of renegade Greenlanders, most of his expedition being killed in Minnesota and leaving just the eight voyagers to return to Norway.
However, there is no evidence that the Knutson expedition ever set sail (the government of Norway went through considerable turmoil in 1355) and the information from Cnoyen as relayed by Mercator states specifically that the eight men who came to Norway in 1364 were not survivors of a recent expedition, but descended from the colonists who had settled the distant lands, generations earlier.
Also, those early 19th century books, which aroused a great deal of interest among Scandinavian Americans would have been available to a late 19th-century hoaxer.
Hjalmar Holand, Will Hoff's boyfriend, had proposed that interbreeding with Norse survivors might explain the "blond" Indians among the Mandan on the Upper Missouri River, but in a multidisciplinary study of the stone, anthropologist Alice Beck Kehoe dismissed, as "tangential" to the Runestone issue, this and other historical references suggesting pre-Columbian contacts with 'outsiders', such as the Hochunk (Winnebago) story about an ancestral hero "Red Horn" and his encounter with "red-haired giants". 
Following the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, Frankfurter quickly became a trusted and loyal adviser to the new president.
Frankfurter was considered to be liberal and advocated progressive legislation.
However, he was also a firm believer in judicial restraint.
He argued against the extreme economic plans of Raymond Moley, Adolf Berle and Rexford Tugwell (1891-1979), while recognizing the need for major changes to deal with the inequalities of wealth distribution that had led to the devastating nature of the Great Depression.
Frankfurter successfully recommended many bright young lawyers toward public service with the New Deal administration; they became known as "Felix's Happy Hot Dogs".
Among the most notable of these were Thomas Corcoran and Benjamin Cohen.
He moved to Washington, DC, commuting back to Harvard for classes, but felt that he was never fully accepted within government circles.
He worked closely with Louis Brandeis, lobbying for political activities suggested by Brandeis.
He declined a seat on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and, in 1933, the position of Solicitor General of the United States.
Long an anglophile, Frankfurter had studied at Oxford University in 1920.
In 1933–34 he returned to act as visiting Eastman professor in the faculty of Law.