Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Madonna in the Church/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Madonna in the Church[edit]

Madonna in the Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):Ceoil, Truthkeeper88, Johnbod

Almost supernaturally beautiful panel painting by Jan van Eyck. Thanks to Kafka Liz and the incorrigible Cocolacoste for their copyedits and suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Can you add the date of painting to the first sentence? Otherwise there's no way for the reader to get a sense of time.
  • Are you sure our MoS allows lead pics on the left; I think they are mandated to be on the right...
  • "Hubert is now credited with only a very few works"—is this relevant for the lead?
  • Yeah. Moved this to the notes. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1438–1440 → 1438–40 throughout, per WP:YEAR.
    Thanks, got these. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Suermondt collection": what is this? Is there a relevant article to link to? (reading a later section, maybe "collection of Barthold Suemondt" is clearer)
    Changed that, though might do up an artice on the Suermondt Ludwig Museum. We have a page on de. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Stub created on Barthold Suermondt for now. Something on the gallery would be better, to follow. Ceoil (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FLOS FLORIOCOLORUM APPELLARIS etc: convert to lower-case per MOS:ALLCAPS and the slightly complicated MOS:ETY.
  • The these letterings were all inscribed in captials (se eg here, and its how they are represented in all the source material. I would worry about misrepresenting if they were here in lower-case.Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to de-cap and they looked wrong - per Ceoil, all the sources use caps and would also worry about misrepresenting. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Medieval Latin (unlike classical) also used lower-case, & the exact form used in short inscriptions like this is nearly always retained in sources. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the prose is underhypenated in several places—jewel studded, earliest known, Near contemporary, and up to date, for eg—but to an extent it may be a preference issue.
  • MOS (somehere) deprecates these, & eg earliest known, Near contemporary, and up to date should not be I think. "jewel studded" I'd say should be, as it would be "studded with jewels" otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ive fixed these instances, combing for others. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to read and review this excellent article in more detail in the near-future.—indopug (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Agree re Hubert and the dates in the lead, working. Im inclined to keep the lead image, not sure is disallowed, and in this instance justified I think because of the orientation of the elements of the painting and because the panel is a diptych wing. Checking out re the caps on the inscriptions, yes MOS:ETY is hard to parse ;) Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the lead image should look left per Ceoil's reasoning. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eek, TK, not wanting to be Judas, but Ive switched it to right! Two have said it since the nom, it might be an issue with some browsers (eg i-phones and such, dunno dont have one), and it looks fine both ways. So much for principals eh? :) Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. I hadn't actually noticed it had been moved, so seems to work fine. I could check on my phone but not smart enough to figure out how to look at a previous revisions. Good call. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

In the discussion of the possible diptych I am confused as to whether the existing panel was on the left or on the right hand side. If commentators disagree then this should be clearly stated in the text. The lead states: "Most art historians see the panel as the right wing of a dismantled diptych... " but the section "Copies and lost diptych" starts with "Art historians believe that there are a number of indicators that the panel was created as the left-hand wing of a dismantled diptych." but then states "Harbison believes the panel is "almost certainly only the right-hand wing of a devotional diptych"." Aa77zz (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was likely the left-hand wing, cleared up now. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify that "viewer's left" is meant (if it is). That is what causes most of these confusions. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further
  • Lead
  • "As with the pages ascribed to Hand G of the Turin-Milan Hours, the panel was for a time attributed to Jan's brother Hubert van Eyck, originally in the 1875 Gemäldegalerie catalogue and by a 1911 claim by art historian Georges Hulin de Loo." - apart from a caption for Turin-Milan, none of this is in the article body.
There's no reason not to only mention something in the lead. There's probably much more to say. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im working on this. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "oil painting" be mentioned somewhere here and in the body? Or is it understood to be so for panel painting of that time period?
  • Mentioned in the lead, which I think is enough. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two very different left-hand images"—should be right-hand images??
  • Attribution and dating
  • Cite missing + could you resolve and remove the hidden comments (several throughout the article)?
  • You should add JvE's lifespan so that "early" and "late" wrt his life become clear.
  • Yes. Mentioned in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing about attribution here, which seems to be dealt with in Provenance. Rename section to just Dating?
  • I'll prob move that bit back up to this sect, and flesh out. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • TK has been busy here. Ceoil (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description
  • "Her hem is embroidered in gold with gilded lettering that reads "SOL" and "LU",[12] or perhaps SIOR SOLE HEC ES,[13] in all probability, fragments of the Latin words for "sun" (sole) and "light" (lux)."—probably needs to be broken into two sentences (use brackets/dashes instead of commas) to improve clarity.
  • "Their angle is unusually realistic for the time"—clarify that you mean time of day. I wondered if it was time in history (when painted) instead.—indopug (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (era). Thanks for these Indopug. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks for these. I've changed "left-hand" to "right-hand", removed the hidden comments and commented out a sentence with a lost ref, and clarified (I think) the angle. One of us will get to the rest later in the day. Good catches! Truthkeeper (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether short citations end in periods
  • FN17: page formatting
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • Walters Art Gallery or Museum?
  • "Ainsworth, Alsteens et al" for three authors? Would make more sense to use either "Ainsworth et al" or just list all three. And why do you list only Hand for that work?
  • FN57: should specify language. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nikkimaria - I've done a few, leaving the rest for Ceoil to pick up. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest are done now. Tks Nikkimaria. Ceoil (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use [2] for every picture portions of the main painting
Yes; done. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note in the file summaries that the picture portions were cut from the actual image
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Crucifix Masaccio.jpg - not much information available. "I got the permissione by the authors of www.wga.hu" and a license is the only things we get to know. Problably needs a JSTOR ticket, if the uploader says that he got the permission. Otherwise, the painting may be in public domain (then the information is meaningless). Consider improving the summary.--Tomcat (7) 12:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously PD, like all these 500+ year old paintings. WGA just use stuff from elsewhere. Why would JSTOR be involved? Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS, but given its WGA, whats the point. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can add info from Crucifixion (Masaccio) if it helps. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't know if JSTOR becomes the new OTRS :).--Tomcat (7) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly derived from the Metropolitan exhibition. Possibly a scan from the catalogue, which has a full page illustration, but more likely from the MMA website. Obviously PD in USA like all these. There is an element on nonsense in spending time trying to work out the precise route that all these museum-derived PD images took in reaching Commons. With google art project things are clearer, & I agree your comments. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, not seeing a need. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Border cropped down as far as possible. Very difficult img to source. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both sorted. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external video template is distracting in the ref section.--Tomcat (7) 12:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Moved to the foot of the sources. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support images are fine, nitpicks were resolved. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness - read this in dribs and drabs over the last couple of days. A nice read. Two minor queries but not dealbreakers per se ....
The dimensions are not given in the body of the text...and I sorta think would fit nicely as an introductory clause before the "The painting's dimensions are small enough.." bit...but I saw them under the top RHS painting.
The second use of the word "provenance " in the provenance section is a tad repetitive. See if you can rephrase. I couldn't come up with one so may not be possible....
Thanks for the support and cmts Cas, I had noticed your earlier edits in the last few days. Good catches, done. Ceoil (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading Cas, and for the support. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update sorry for the delay in coming back to this. A quick glance-through indicates that my earlier concerns have been addressed and that the article is easily FA-level; I will hopefully find time for a thorough read in the coming days and support then. In the meantime:

  • "Since discovered in 1851"—seems abrupt. Did it go missing before 1851? (don't see anything about this in the preceding text)
  • Essentially, yes. It was "discovered" or first documented in 1851, but that needs clarification. Thanks for catching. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Can the lead have (or preferably end on) a note about the panel's beauty/importance? Like "Universial praised, critics call it an 'Almost supernaturally beautiful panel painting'."
  • I think the meaning of provenance should be given here. There's a entire section about it, but it isn't a very common English word. Something like "The provenance of the work, i.e. the chronology of its ownership, is uncertain". Also consider describing a donor as the person who commissioned the work and hence has his picture painted; I don't think this is evident to lay-readers.—indopug (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will look for a statement to add to the lead, but might take me a day or so to get to it. Thanks for these - they're helpful. Thanks for reading though too. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • TK I can look after the lead statement, I do think it is warranted but was a bit worried re POV. Not sure about provenance, but can prob couch an explination. Thanks again Indopug. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. I stuck one in, [3], but not wedded to it. I think a statement is okay if we attribute. I left provenance to you, but can help if you get it started. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next to the linked term, I added a quick definition of provenance (well-supported by the source as it happens) which I think works. I do agree that unfamiliar terms should have in-text explanation. Hope you're good with this. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been going on a while now, & as far as I can tell the points raised so far by reviewers have been addressed. If anyone thinks this is not the case, perhaps they could say so here, so we can draw a line at this point. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two supports and from Indopug, who hasnt edited in a few days but who has been pinged, "my earlier concerns have been addressed and [] the article is easily FA-level". Thanks to the deligates for leaving it open, but can you give a few more days pls before an archive. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing now . . .—indopug (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revisit
  • "the painting composed as if these sculptures are intended as the main figures in the panel come to life"—shouldn't that be the other way around? "the main figures are intended to be the sculptures come to life"?
    Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure you aren't overstating MITC's influence on Bening's Virgin and Child? The paragraph talks mostly of how different the latter is from MITC, and that it's informed either by the Cambrai or the Gossaert copy. Further, the Cambrai Madonna article mentions the Bening piece (but no mention of influence from van Eyck) and features several similar-looking portraits that don't seem to have been influenced by MITC.
    Need to pull out the source again on this. 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    The sequence is that JvE deviated from the Cambrai work, his innovations were copied by Gossaert. Bening (100 years later) took JvE/Gossaert one step further but reinstated some of the anacronisims of the Cambrai, notably the halo, which was well out of fashion even by the early 1400s. The cambrai articel came out of this one, its not yet complete itself. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Panofsky expressed some reservations,[18] Pächt felt that it was "probably" accompanied by another wing." —unless you specify what the reservations are, this seems like an expendable sentence.
    Fair enough. Removed. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On several occasions, you've described people as "art historian". This is often unnecessary; it's clear the person is a scholar.
    It was kind of overkill, as everybody mentioned comes underthat description, and there are a few phrases like 'art historian agree..'. agree its clear without stating too often. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madonna panel contains far fewer indicators of being a pendant" - what is a pendant here?
    Clarified as an accompanying but unattached sister panel. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the SmartHistory link removed, I thought it was a pretty useful and well-made summary.—indopug (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now in Ext links. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support regardless of my mostly minor quibbles above.—indopug (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the revisit and the support. Reworded the lead (and thanks for catching that), and trimmed a few "art historians" - probably a few more can go. Leaving the other to Ceoil who has the sources for those points. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes good points raises again here, all done with the exception of Bening. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Just a couple of thoughts re. the lead: 1) given Eyck's life date are approximate and therefore a bit of a mouthful, I don't know that you need them in the opening sentence -- he's linked, and the date of the painting is given, so I think there's enough info; 2) since you explain Virgin of Tenderness, I don't think "touchingly" is really necessary in the same sentence -- seems a trifle peacockish to me anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, removed both. Ceoil (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Madonna_in_the_Church/archive1&oldid=547044717"