Talk:Zanetto Bugatto

message: His name is Bugatto, not Bugatti--Claude J (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct --Sailko (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you actually look at the one reference cited for this article, you'll confirm that reference spells the name with an "i". wbm1058 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma title

message: Peer Edit:
Lead Article:
Your lead paragraphs are very informative. However, in the very first paragraph, the information gets a little confusing with the inclusion of various workshops, and things from his biography. I would maybe leave those detailed specifics for the biography section, and instead focus on the main points of who Bugatto was so that the reader has more of a general understanding. 
The other paragraphs of the lead also have a similar feel. The information in them seem to be more suited for the biography section. Instead of getting into the specific details of the works, maybe focus on his influences and his legacy more generally. I found looking at other popular wikipedia articles for famous artists helped me determine how to shape my lead article. 
A way to fix this might be taking out all of the many people who influenced him and maybe choosing the most important. Then focus on the details that explain what kind of art he was known for, since these details seem to get lost in the paragraphs. 
Rest of the Article:
One thing I noticed right away is that the article only has one section, which is the biography. This is definitely a rich biography, but I would consider including other sections that might give a deeper look what type of artist Bugatto was. This could include focusing on a few famous works in detail, listing the known works, breaking his life into sections of youth to maturity, discussing his legacy or his influences, or a section about his style which seems to be distinct. Also, he is known for working with different types of art and mediums. It might be helpful to have sections that focus on his works in each type of art. 
I would also consider including pictures for the works that you do include in his biography. This will give readers a better understanding of the progression of his style as an artist. 
In the second paragraph of the biography you go into great detail about the influence of van der Weyden in his style of painting. If I were you I might consider trimming this section down and moving the information about their relationship and van der Weyden's influence to a new section where you can really go into depth about it, and use paintings to support your claims. 
I think that your fourth paragraph is rich with information about the time that Bugatto spent working in Milan. I would consider adding in pictures to give a better visual understanding of what type of art Bugatto was experimenting with during this time.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcalmar15 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll be sure to break it up into sections for his works and influences and simplify the lead section and language overall. I'm not going to be able to add much description of his works or photos however since there are only two surviving works left by Bugatto. I've tried to include some description of his style as we understood it was, but the since most of our understanding of his art is from works by people influenced by him or works we know he was influenced by and records from commissions, it's a bit difficult. I'll make that more clear and maybe I can include some paintings from his influences like Rogier and people who have based their works on his.Walcoh (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 2017 review