Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dresden Triptych/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 10:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Dresden Triptych[edit]

Dresden Triptych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoria

Very small but very beauitful and innovative 1437 triptych altarpiece, which had a significant influence on following generations of Netherlandish painters, but which is now sadly in poor condition. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Crisco 1492
Note that this is well outside my general subject area, so my questions may be quite basic.
Dresden Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister - Per WP:SEAOFBLUE, splitting these links would be nice.
Yes, done (not by me). Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ALC IXH XAN - What language is this, if a language and not a code?
Mixture of Latin and Flemish, but as its a play on words not strickly either. Will clarify in a note. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Virgin Mary - You have "Marian" earlier, which could be construed as the first mention. Or you could link to a general article on Marian art with the first "Marian".
the Christ child - Since we're linking Mary, may as well link Christ/Christ child
Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why the link to miniature (illuminated manuscript)? I don't think a triptych would fall under "manuscript"
Done (not by me). Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we know that Philip the Good owned at least one. - One of this triptych, or a miniature for personal devotion?
One miniature. Clarified now. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a typical 14th-century - if van Eyck painted in the 15th century, why would he use a format common to the preceding century?
Child Christ - Isn't Christ Child more common?
Indeed. Switched around. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
on northern artists of 12th and 13th century Italian artists - Can't parse this.
Done (not by me). Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
– unlike Robert Campin who favoured domestic settings – - value of the comparison not yet clear
Domestic vs ecclesiastical interiors. Will draw out. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HIC EST ARCHANGELUS PRINCEPS MILITAE ANGELORUM CUIUS HONOR PRAESTAT BENEFICIA POPULORUM ET ORATARIO PERDUCIT AD REGNA COELORUM. HIC ANGELUS MICHAEL DEI NUNTIUS DE ANIMABUS JUSTIS. GRATIA DEI ILLE VICTOR IN COELIS RESEDIT. A PACIBUS. - No translation?
cn tag added
Brough back and translation cited now. Ceoil (talk)
VIRGO PRUDENS ANELAVIT, GRANUM SIBI RESERVAVIT, VENTILANDO PALEAM. DISIPLINUS EST IMBUTA PUELLA COELESTIBUS, NUDA NUDUM EST SECUTA CHRISTUM PASSIBUS, DUM MUNDANIS EST EXUTA ECT - No translation?


That's it for today, another three paragraphs for tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Crisco for these; working through....Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another three tomorrow? Jesus your a hard man. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • D'oh, meant another three sections to look at — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats grand. I think we got most of you points with a few straglers to be worked on. The issues re the frames I'm still thinking about, dont have a solution yet, and might have to confer with some of out image guys. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, looks good. I note a couple of other (fairly heavy) changes, but they all seem in order so no comments on them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the search for translations of the inscriptions threw up two unexpected sources. I should be finished incorporating them by this time tomorrow night. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of these I now have access to and for comprehensiveness needed to be incorporated. The translations for the inscriptions are now added and a few other bits here and there. Victoria (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In #Architecture there's hidden text saying "such as". I agree with it very much. Any examples?
  • This is particularly noticeable with the positioning of the throne in comparison to the Lucca Madonna and the van der Paele panel. - Shouldn't this be combined with the earlier paragraph?
  • You link Genoa in the lead, but don't link it in either of the first two in-text mentions.
  • Before 1754 the triptych was thought by Albrecht Dürer, until the German historian Aloys Hirt in 1830 established it as a van Eyck. - This and the preceding sentence may be worth merging
  • Margaret - What's with the Easter-egg link?
  • We don't have an article about her, this one about her portrait is as about as much as we've written about. But I'll leave this to Ceoil to sort. Victoria (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1436 work - You just said it's "circa" 1436
  • Any more details on the individual restorations?
  • Added a small amount from the sources I have available. Victoria (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the mid-19th century, at the time of the rediscovery of the Early Netherlandish painters, the Dresden catalogues first attribute it to Hubert van Eyck and a few years later to Jan. - Role of restoration not clear here
  • Don't think there is one. Many of van Eyck's paintings were first attributed to his brother Hubert. I'll add something in about that - it's a good point. Victoria (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't find anything simple (beyond a few hundred or so page monologues) that spits this out. See what Ceoil thinks & what he has in his sources. We might just be able to add a note. Victoria (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking about restoration because the version I read was "Van Eyck signed, dated and added his device to the central panel, a fact only discovered when the frame was removed in the course of a mid-19th century restoration", followed by the bit about Hirt attributing it to van Eyck. (Which I had assumed was connected). Interesting about Hubert/Jan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All images showing the frame should be cropped; the frame is a 3D object and thus scans/photographs would not fall under PD-Art. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the frames are crucial to the form and the inscriptions. Will let someone else who knows more about this figure it out, but would like to keep them. Victoria (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think for several of them you could remove it (the first case with Mary, for instance, doesn't seem relevant to the text next to it). For the overall image, the only thing I can think of which would allow you to keep the frame is taking a picture of the triptych yourself (or having someone upload a free image). Fair-use is a no-go because the image is replaceable. (Or maybe Google could release the scan in the public domain?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mary doesn't have the frame (that's St. Catherine reading the book) and it is relevant to the text in that section. I made the crops specifically to show the inscriptions on the frames - the frames, inscriptions and painting are all an integrated piece. I'll wait for Ceoil to weigh in, but I'd prefer not to have this become FA if we have to remove the frames. Sorry, but there you go. Anyway, I've made most of the other changes. Still trying to figure out which language van Eyck spoke in the 15th cent. Some sort of Flemish/Dutch/German. Will add that if any of the sources mention it. Victoria (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • D'oh, that's what I get for closing tabs. We should have some Wikipedians in Dresden who'd be willing to take a picture, and you could still use the (non-frame including) bits from Google for the details. I note (on memory here), however, that your earlier diptychs do not seem to have had an issue with the frame. Do you have links to the reviews on hand? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've croped the (two, as opposed to several) lower images formerly with frames; thinking about the lead pic; off the top of my head having an article that discusses the inscriptions at lenght but does not show them is lacking. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the border still showing in 'Dresden Triptych Detail Archangel Michael with Donor.jpg' is a painted imitation of a bronze frame. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. Re: Frames: I think (though I'm not sure, someone could certainly school me otherwise) that the flat portions of the frame would be PD themselves and thus a crop showing only that would be okay... but not too sure of that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking for something entirely different I just found this book showing the frames, and this from the Met too shows it with the frames if that makes a difference. This is almost always shown with the frames it seems. Victoria (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expect that, which means losing the frames would be a blasted shame. The only wiggle room I can think of, aside from treating the flat portions as a separate work of art (i.e. having them in their own files or whatnot) is to argue that a flat scan does not show enough originality to draw a new copyright; this is, it seems, a fairly weak argument, as scans of coins and other almost flat objects still need to be self-made on Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good article, I'm already tapping the "s" key in preparation for my !vote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for these Crisco - very good review. I've caught a few, for the others will need to trawl through the sources to look for answers. Victoria (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done what I can from the sources I have. Ceoil will prob get the rest. Victoria (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I wrote above about Jan and Hubert is, unfortunately, a gross oversimplification and hard (impossible!) to find a source without using entire chapters of books. I'm thinking it might be best to leave for now, (it's mentioned in the other paintings as is), and then spin out in the biographies when they're written. Victoria (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, no problem there.
  • Support on prose (and mostly on images). We need to try and work out those frames though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh thanks! The frames are intergral to the work, and excluding them would lead to a very incomplete article. I'm weary about having a local editor in Dresden take a pic for the lead; because the work is so small it would really need a professional to bring across the granularity and colour scheme, otherwise it could mislead in all sorts of ways (see the talk of Mona Lisa for an indication). I think a fair use justification of the google image is the only option here, but still thinking it through. Thanks for the thoughtful look over though, the page has improved a lot since you gave openions. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed this! Thanks Crisco and thanks for the thoughtful questions. The frames really are important I think it's like the dustjacket of a book or any other page where at least a single FUR is allowed. It's not been an issue on Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych and Madonna in the Church and the frames are as important on those works, though I think even more important here because they were made protect the piece and have for these many centuries. Victoria (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you ordering sources by the same author in Bibliography
  • Check consistency of punctuation/ordering in Bibliography - compare "Tabard Press. 1980" and "Chaucer Press, 2004" and "1999. London: Harvey Miller Publishers"
  • Is Luber 1988 or 1998? Is Heath 1998 or 2008?
  • FN36: page?
  • No bibliographic info for Harbison 1997 - should this be 1991 or 1995?
  • Fn2: link formatting
  • Apollo should be italicized
  • Be consistent in whether journals/magazines include publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nikkimaria for the source check! Victoria (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've not finished reading this yet, but I have picked up a few issues in the lead:

  • The sentence "It is the only extant triptych attributed to van Eyck, and the only work that is not a portrait signed with his personal motto" is somewhat unclear. It could mean (a) every other van Eyck work is a portrait signed with his personal motto, or (b) that this is his only non-portrait work that is signed with his motto. Clarification requested.
  • Its the latter and have made this clearer. Ceoil (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs to be clearly stated at the beginning of the lead, and in the lead image caption, that this work of art consists of more than is visible in the illustration. I was a little nonplussed by the reference at the beginning of the second paragraph to "The paintings on the two outer wings..." since there is no previous indication that these outer panels exist.
  • Yes. Added to the lead "It consists of 5 individual panel painting; a central inner panel, and two double sided wings.", and mentioned the closed view in the lead caption. Ceoil (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the non-specialist reader might welcome some use of less technical expressions, e.g. "monochrome" for "grisaille", to reduce the necessity of having to hop out of the article to read links.
  • Grisaille explained in the lead ("painted in grisaille, which because of its near-monochrome colouring, gives the impression that the figures are sculpted"). The 'description' and 'architecture' sections are riddled with terms, I'm not sure how much explanation is desirable here, again, thinking. Ceoil (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "distinct" is an unnecesary embroidery

In the final section "Attribution and provenance" I just happened to notice "Before 1754 the triptych was thought by Albrecht Dürer..." Personally I'd prefer "Until", but you definitely need "to be" after "was thought".

It was attributed to Dürer only for a period though, so I was couching and being deliberatly vague. Reworded as "For a time until 1754", but not mad about it, thinking....Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at the sources again. Victoria (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will post any further comments later. Am much enjoying the article. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, working through these. Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: Not through yet, but I'm well on the way. These are mainly minor fixes relating to links, prose etc. I may have the odd general point to raise when I'm finished with the nitpicks:

  • "The outer frames, originally painted in grey and yellow marbling, was later overpainted....": "frames ... were" or "frame ...was", not "frames ... was"
  • "coat of arms" should be linked (actually, this first appears in the lead)
  • Consecutive adverbs ("typically subtly") never read well, and I wonder if this phrasing could be revised?
  • "However in his sacra conversaziones after 1436, van Eyck showed only "only vestigial traces" of this symbolism." First, "sacra conversaziones" should be linked here, rather than at second mention. Secondly, I'm not sure of what "this sybolism" is refering to.

Likewise it was not clear to me what symbolism Lynn Jacobs is seeing; we are told where she sees it, but not what it is.

  • Worked on this somewhat. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe there is an accepted format for articles on works of art, but to me it would be more logical to place the description before the sections on condition and iconography. It would help to make better sense of these sections.
  • I see this is already done. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "painted marble frames" - does this mean actual marble, painted over, or a painted representation of marble?
  • Explained better in the "condition" section, so removed from here. Victoria (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think encyclopedic detachment means that formulations like "we know that" should be depersonalised, and expressed in a way that indicates how it is known
  • Yes; it should be "art historical research..." - working... Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that was my mistake and now removed. Sorry, didn't post here. Victoria (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...a colour scheme which, Peter Heath describes as lending to a "sense of airy silence". Odd phrasing, "lending to"; if this is Heath's wording, it should be included within the quote. Otherwise, I'd drop the "to".
  • "The banner is adorned" → "This is adorned"
  • Reworded as holds towards the donor a banderole[7] adorned with a phrase from, but not delighted, might revisit tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the capital in "lowly in Heart"?
  • "the aisles brilliantly convey spaciousness" - this is POV language, that needs to be neutralised, unless it is quoted from an expert in which case it should be attributed or cited.
  • Yes, after consulting the source, removed. Victoria (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madonna of Chancellor Rolin" needs to linked on first, not second mention
  • "Arnofini Portrait" should be "Arnolfini Portrait" and should be linked
  • I think there should be some consistency in Catherine's nomenclature. At present she is variously referred to as "Catherine", "St. Catherine", "Catherine of Alexandria".
  • "brushwork" is one word
  • "What is meant by "closely described buildings"?
  • Reworded as higly detailed. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and finish tomorrow Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these Brian and no rush. I took care of some of the above and Ceoil will need to address a few. I've moved the condition section back where it had been. The iconography section has been problematic and will take a few days to think about, but for now I've re-combined with the description (which I think works) - it's never an easy section to integrate. Victoria (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments

  • "His bowl-shaped hair cut..." Replace the pronoun "His" with "The donor's..."
  • "in his earlier van der Paele..." → "in van Eyck's earlier van der Paele..."
  • "van Eyck extends to placing them..." → "van Eyck extends by placing them..."
  • "from the Byzantine art" or "from Byzantine art"?
  • The phrasing "the incarnation of the coming of Christ" doesn't make sense to me. "Incarnation" means the assumption of bodily form, hence we can have "the incarnation of Christ", but not the incarnation of the coming og Christ.
  • Architecture section": Should begin: "The depicted church..."
  • All the above icorporated thanks. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the only commissioned work to contain van Eyck's motto"; in the lead, it is "his only non-portrait signed with his personal motto", which is different.
  • Clarified as the latter. I think the confusion arised from the fact that in general there is no surviving documentation on on any of the portrit comissioners. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggested earlier some reorganisation in the order of sections, which I see you have implemented. I am now wondering if the "Provenance and attribution" section ought to precede the description?. I personally would find it helpful to know, at the beginning of the article, the general history – where the work originated, where it's been for 600 years, how we know it's van Eyck's, etc. I won't press this issue if you see it differently, but it may be worth thinking about.
  • Rather than relying on a formula we were playing around with the format towards the end, as individual paintings have different histories and points of interest/importance. I wondered if having the the "providence" and "condition" sect closely follow would be revealing, esp given that a long prov often implies poor condition (dismantling, later retouching and so on). In the end could not establish, there are long gaps in the history, and have now made simplier. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article is an excellent account of a fascinating work of art, and with attention to the points I've raised, should soon be ready for its FA star. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a few o/s, slightly tricky, issues from the above; will let you know when complete. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all covered now. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on basis of responses as above. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Brian for taking the time to read, for the excellent (as usual!) review, and for the support. Working on this article and through this FAC has been a pleasure. Victoria (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor's Comments
Lead
  • It is signed and dated 1437, and now in Dresden at - Should probably repeat the is or add another verb after and. Reads awkwardly as is.
  • In this work, damaged coat of arms on the borders of the interior wings have been identified with the Giustiniani of Genoa, an influential albergo active from 1362, and who established trade links with Bruges as early as the mid-14th century. - Not sure why and who is used when who is fine. In that case you should remove the comma there, too.
  • I tried it, but the albergo clause is an appositive and so needs punct - I've tried dashes instead. Victoria (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • Given this miniaturist scale, the triptych probably functioned as a portable devotional piece, or (altare portabile).[3] - Not familiar with this format... using or then putting it in parentheses?
  • Since the first and third quotes are cited, the second one should be cited too for consistency. That is, after this sentence: However in the sacra conversaziones after 1436 van Eyck showed only "only vestigial traces" of the diguised symbolism his earlier works were infused with.
  • It's all from one single long quote on the same page so prefer not to overcite here. Plus this section might not stay, so have left for now. Victoria (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saints
  • This must also be the case here, but which incident is lost.[25] - I have no idea what this means.
  • Have made this a bit clearer. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • Lots of commas that aren't necessary. I'm going to cut some of these out because they are just strikingly excessive, but to keep with the style I won't mess with them too much.
  • Weeding out. This is my habit, I admit ;) Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few grammar mistakes here and there. I'm fixing them as I go, so no worries. :)
  • Yes, and thanks for those. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, how I love to read your guys' articles. Very dense article, so I'll probably take a while to get through it. ceranthor 22:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Ceranthor, and thanks for the copyedits. I got a few of these; one of us will be back for the rest soon. Victoria (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More Ceranthor Comments
Architecture
  • The nave is very narrow, barely wide enough to contain her, and walled by a colonnade joined by entablatures and capped with rounded arches. - needs an is after and
  • There are a number of implied spaces out of view; the central panel alone contains two on either side of the pillars, others lead from the balcony above the throne, as well as unseen exits to hallways behind each inner panel.[38] - The part after "as well as" does not grammatically fit the rest of the sentence.
  • No it does not. Restructured and rephrased now. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A set of east facing windows, barely visible behind the throne, are similar to those in the Rolin Madonna.[29] - Very awkwardly phrased.
  • Van Eyck pays close attention to the fall of this daylight, - Not sure fall is the correct word here.
  • Reworded as to the saturating effects and gradations of the light. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Donor
  • who named their trading house in Paris for St. Catherine and whose daughter, also Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. - Lots of whos here. Too many!

I'll probably run through again for any other missed tweaks. ceranthor 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. These are most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If I find anything else I'll post it here, but I shouldn't let niggling concerns subtract from this awesome article. Great job! ceranthor 23:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your astute suggestions, copyedits and <cough> support are greatly appreciated. Thanks a bunch for giving over the time. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review and support! Thanks too for the comments and the copyedits. I'll give it another run through again tomorrow to check for little things and niggles, as soon as I'm able. Victoria (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're very welcome!

I'd also like to point out that the references are neat and seem to check out fine. ceranthor 13:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment – I've corrected a few typos (but please check my changes); there remains one word I think is probably a typo, but I wasn't confident enough to change, viz "imitiation", which may perhaps be a technical term rather than a typo. I'll read this article more thoroughly and return with comments on the substantive content. I rather think I'm going to enjoy it. More soonest. – Tim riley (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Tim much appreciated. I've not yet had a chance to swing through today to catch typos (they're endemic with us, and I've fixed the one mentioned above) but will get to it as soon as time permits. Looking forward to your review! Victoria (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim, resuming review:
  • Lead
    • First line – however many "ors" you've got between the brackets you need a singular verb for the singular noun: "The Dresden Triptych (or blah, or blah, or blah………) is the name given…".
      I've tweaked, hopefully okay now. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am embarrassingly inexpert with hyphens and I oughtn't to pontificate, but the absence of one in "left hand wing" looks odd to me.
      added one there but it's a blind spot (blind-spot?) for me, I think perhaps confused by different usages between Am Eng. and Br. Eng. Will consult Fowler. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "That the frames are so richly decorated with Latin inscriptions indicates ..." – what a treat to see such an old-fashioned and stylish construction! Loud cheers!
    • "There is a lack of" – i.e. there isn't any or there is very little? Not clear.
      Fixed. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "so the identities" – "so" is not a conjunction; you need "and so" or some such here.
    • "damaged coat of arms on the borders of the interior wings have been identified" – not sure how to make this right, but the singular noun and the plural verb clash with one another. Either coats of arms have been or coat of arms has been.
      Had to refresh my memory by consulting sources - two sets of coats of arms and I've fixed accordingly. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provenance and attribution
    • "the mid to late 15th century" – more hyphen questions. You have mid-14th century at the end of the lead, which I think is right. There are several more adverb–adjective–noun phrases later ("her heavily folded dress" etc) that may need a hyphen too, but I say no more on that point, and suggest you seek the expert attention of one of WP's guardian grammar and spelling angels. (I can think of two first-rate ones if you're stuck.)
      See above. I can think of two myself and will consult there, but think this is a nut I should be able to crack and it's frankly one that bothers me. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Add: Fowler's says that American English uses fewer hyphens (hence I suspect my blind spot for this issue) and that the main point is consistency. He also says he would avoid a construction such as "early-19th-century poetry". I think I'll let others weigh in here - there are still some inconsistencies but I'm afraid I'll make them worse rather than better. Victoria (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Gowers quotes another authority as saying, "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad," and adds, "I have no intention of taking hyphens seriously". Who am I to disagree with that great man? But I still think you should consult someone who is willing to take hyphens seriously. Tim riley (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've found a nice and clear list of rules in a grammar book from my shelves and I've followed those, mentioning the rules in the edit summaries and now I'll know where to find them! Thanks for bringing this up - it is an issue that often confuses me. I hope it's better now. Victoria (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After Charles'" – you need to decide whether to use the British or American form of possessives of words ending in s. At present you have American "Charles'" and English "Goes's" etc. I need hardly add which I prefer, but then it's none of my business.
      Fixed per Br. Eng. 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • "IOHANNIS DE EYCK etc" – I greatly admire the way you have dealt with the difficulty of reconciling capitalised originals with that daunting document the WP Manual of Style. Very nice indeed. Not sure you need initial caps in every word of the translation, though.
      See the Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych - this is how the all sources present the inscriptions and we've decided to follow. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine.
    • "the word "complete" (complevit)" – but the word was "completed" a few words earlier.
      Good catch. Fixed. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More anon. This article is a treat, and I feel an urge to type "Support" straight away, but I shall sternly refrain until I've finished a line-by-line scrutiny. – Tim riley (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding batch of comments and adding support

  • Donor
    • "places it … at least by the end of the 15th century" – unclear: by earliest or latest?
      Good point, fixed. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description
    • "in so far as" – some people (not me) get aerated about this and insist it should be "insofar as". I'm away from home and haven't got Fowler etc to hand where I am. I merely mention the point.
      Per Fowler's, should be "in so far as", so I'll leave as it. (Had to look it up myself). Victoria (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frames
    • "It retains its original frames" – the opening "It" is a bit blunt for the opening of a new section. Perhaps "The Triptych"?
      Fixed - left over from reorganizing. Thanks for catching. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "during travel and when in situ." – I wonder if it is necessary to say this, as the thing can never have been anything other than in travel or in situ. Merely a suggestion, and certainly not something I'd make a fuss about.
      Probably worth keeping because it was made to be portable but leaving to Ceoil. Victoria (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hec est speciosior… Two points here. I don't propose to say how many years it is since I had to study Latin, but "hec" (for "haec"?) looks very odd to me. Quite expecting (and perfectly content) to be told I'm wrong. Secondly, I wonder if you have considered making the Latin quote and the translation into a block quote? As it is, I find them a bit tiring to the eye as full lines within the text.
      Clicking twice on the lead picture enlarges it enough to the see the "HEC" in the upper left of the center panel. 15th Latin, I guess. Or maybe simply done so for reasons of space. I have put the long quote back in the notes; agree. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virgin and Child
    • "Peter Heath" – I think this is the first time he's been mentioned, and perhaps a word or two of introduction might be helpful, e.g. "the art historian Peter Heath" or "Peter Heath in his 2008 study" or some such. Ditto with first mentions of other authorities mentioned in the text.
      Am weary of this in general - have implied that anybody giving an openion is an art historian; otherwise the clarifications will be dully repetitive. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough. Tim riley (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "makes her seem larger spatially" – I'm probably being dim, but how else, other than spatially, can something or someone seem larger?
      Clarified a bit and attributed to the source. Victoria (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "is roughly in scale to the figures in the wings" – are things "in scale to"? "In scale with" looks more natural to me. Once again, merely a tentative suggestion, to be ignored if you disagree.
      'in proportion to. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and although his body" – if I correctly read this sentence you mean "but" rather than "and".
      Tweaked. Victoria (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saints and donor wings
    • Permit me to say that I read the first two paragraphs with something like excitement. This is precise and evocative prose. If, for some reason, you had been unable to provide photographs of the Triptych the reader would still have had a jolly good idea what it looked like, and what its effect on the viewer.
    • "bowl-shaped hair cut" – as mentioned above, I am away from my books, but I think fairly confidently that "haircut" is one word rather than two. You may like to check.
      Yes, fixed this. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "adds credence in the belief" – I struggled with this: do you mean it "adds credibility to…"?
      Changed per Fowler's. Victoria (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Architecture
    • "Each of the capitals have" – "Each of the capitals has"?
      Yikes! Thanks for catching. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They are decorated" – the capitals or the small baldachins?
      Actually the apostles - needs to be rewritten. Will do. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the van Eyck's Rolin Madonna" – remove either the definite article or the possessive, I'd say.
      Thanks again for the catch! Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He often used light as a visual symbol to represent God's ethereal presence." – Ought this to have a citation?
      Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. I hope some of it is useful. I found this article not only informative, but strangely moving in parts. I avoid commenting on images, if I can, but the prose seems to me to meet all FA criteria. Have gladly added my support, above. – Tim riley (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and the nice words. I find this piece of art to be extremely moving and have enjoyed writing about it. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim for the detailed look and help. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images: Just to note that Crisco qualified his support pending that the issue of the 3D frame is resolved...this is being worked through on the talk with some valuable imput and thoughs from people with knowledge of the issue from both point of view. We seem to have a workable solution; but it's not fully bedded down yet, but note the effort on improving the new suggested lead image [2]. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with Image comments by Ruhrfisch. I have read the article and find it meets the FA criteria. My only question is if it is known how the painting survived the Second World War, to be looted after by the Soviet Army? Given the destruction of Dresden in February 1945, my guess is that it was stored in a safe location outside the city during much of the war, perhaps in a salt mine. If this detail is known, it should be added.

As for the images, there are 10 in the article (counting the tiny one in the Van Eyck navbox at the bottom). Of these 10, 7 are clearly free under {{PD-Art}} given the age of the artworks shown (and all portions of the 10 images showing paintings are free). The problem is the original frame, whose three-dimensional nature means that anyone photographing it has made a copyrighted work. The lead image, which shows the whole altar front and frame is freely licensed as {{CC-by-2.0}} from Flickr (note - I found it there and uploaded it). The remaining two images each show small amounts of the frame and are included here under WP:FAIR USE claims, which I support. They are File:Dresden Triptych Detail Archangel Michael with Donor.jpg (which shows how the inner edges of the frame were painted to appear to be bronze) and File:Dresden triptych Catherine and frame 1.jpg (which shows more clearly the relation between the paintings and the original frame). I think a de minimis argument would also be valid here, in that to show the relation between the paintings and their original 576 year old frame, a tiny fraction of the total frame has to be shown. The current free lead image (showing frame and all) is the best free image of the frame available, but is of poor quality for showing any detail in the paintings or frame. I think it might help to link to the complete Google Art image using {{External media}}. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in Ruhrfisch. What you are saying re the lead image is hard to hear, very much so, as my focus in the last 2 years has almost been exclusively in the area of 15th century art, mostly triptychs, but I respect you and have always seen you as a clued in straight shooter. Re the war, no mention in the sources I have, but its a very good point. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ruhrfisch for helping with this. I appreciate it immensely. Victoria (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Ruhrfisch's summary, have stricken my "mostly" above. Good job everyone! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well not really, but carry on! Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the necessary fair use rationales have been added and files re-uploaded here from Commons. I think this is what Crisco is asking for. Hopefully everything is now taken care of. Victoria (talk) 01:29, 7 August 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/Dresden_Triptych/archive1&oldid=1086353836"