Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsVisual arts
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The article contains a footnote (currently no. 3) that maintains that Mostaert was not the court portrait painter for Margaret of Austria for 18 years, but that he was the court painter for "lady Margaret" in Brussels and Mechelen for 10 years between 1516 and 1526. But Margaret of Austria was the Regent, residing in Brussels and often in Mechelen, at that time. So I think that the editor who wrote this note is just confused in thinking that "another" lady Margaret was his patron. A citation-needed tag has already been attached for a very long time, so I think the note should simply be removed, which I will do by simply commenting it out (so that it may be restored as soon as somebody belatedly supplies the needed citation).--Giant'sConscience (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I found the citation just now, but as I suspected without the confusion about another "lady Margaret". In the citation it is asserted that it probably was just a matter of boasting, which would introduce another controversy; let's stay with the facts. So I have deleted the last sentence from the note and added the citation, with an url to Google books.--Giant'sConscience (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
