Talk:Andrea del Verrocchio

message: The Colleoni statue is not in stone, but in bronze  --80.128.191.179 19:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I added a mention of V's model.Art4med (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sculpture of David (Bargello, Florence) 

message: I have reverted this article to the last version which contained a full commentary on the statue of Colleoni. It seems to me essential that an article on Verrocchio should deal at length with his (probably) greatest work.
I can see no need for a separate article (which includes some unsourced comments and is as much about Verrocchio as about the statue). A redirection to the section of this article will serve the same purpose and ensure that a reader searching for information on Verrocchio will read all about this statue without having to follow a link which he might not realise to be important.
When the text was moved to a new article some changes were made. In particular the reference to a clay model was altered to a wax model. But Lorenzo di Credi in the statement he prepared in 1488 specifically stated that Verrocchio before his death had completed the figure and horse in clay (terra) only (See Pope-Hennessy p.315). Presumably the wax came at the casting stage. Two paragraphs were also added on the problem of balancing the horse on three legs only, saying that Verrocchio was the first to solve this problem. But the horse in the statue of Marcus Aurelius in Rome and the four horses of San Marco in Venice (both mentioned in the first paragraph) also stand on three legs. These paragraphs quote no references and I have not copied them.
The substituted photo of the statue was so dark that the features could not be made out. I had selected Naya's photo because it is so clear.
Apologies for misspelling VerrocChio on a few occasions. I will correct this.
Waysider1925 (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should reconsider separating a main article on the statue for interwikilinks see :d:Q473237--Oursana (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting edits (made Sept 2011) to section on the Colleoni statue  

message: Throughout the article, few citations exist for much of the information provided. When citations do appear, the information seems to be heavily reliant on two works of literature - that by Passavent and that by Covi. Though it does not outrightly read with bias, the lack of a broader set of sources hints at a possibly unbalanced article - there is a need to include a more eclectic range of citations. 
There are many speculative claims throughout; claims that are proceeded by a comment of there being 'no evidence', or being considered 'apocryphal'. The inability to corroborate such statements indicates to me a need to cite the original claim, or remove the information. 
Besides these two concerns, the article is well-structured. I appreciated the focus that was included on the Statue of Bartolomeo Colleoni. As his most famous work, I agree with the need to distinguish it from his other pieces within the article. However, a more accurate photograph would serve the passage on the Statue of Colleoni well. 
Benthrosby (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Critique 

message: "He became known by his nickname Verrocchio, from vero occhio, which in Italian means "true eye", a tribute given to him for his artistic achievement." Why do people write such rubbish? This is meant to be an encyclopedia. Ruskin comments that he took the name of his master, a goldsmith, and the Britannica has the following: "Initially he was trained as a goldsmith. His master has traditionally been recorded as a supposed goldsmith, Giuliano Verrocchi, whose last name Andrea apparently took as his own." In short, this is a tradition but not outright invention.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verrocchio from "vero occhio"