Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents/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, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents[edit]

Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoria, Maralia

Intimate, moving and respectful diptych portrait of Albrecht Dürer's parents. The Dürer family went through many hardships but remained close and Albrecht Dürer the Elder and Barbara Holfer were proud of their exceptionally talented son. I hope this is conveyed in the article. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had my say in reviewing the article earlier. On a re-read, just a few issues.

  • "ageing" is also rendered as "aging".
  • Barbara's age, in the lede, is presented as about 36; in the body it seems to be around 39.
  • "Albrecht the Elder's panel is usually, but not always, thought to be the first of the two to be executed … Recent technical examination of the two panels, however, confirm that Barbara's portrait was painted later than Albrecht's." If the people who say that Albrecht's was not executed first are wrong, why mention them? There's sort of a tone contradiction here, if you see what I mean.
  • "although 3 cm was later removed from the left edge of Barbara's panel" Later than what? The last dated event is 1977, surely not?

Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these Wehwalt - good catches - and thanks for the support! I got all of these, except Barbara's age. I'm fairly certain it should be 39 (depending on when it was painted!) but don't have that source at hand. Ceoil or Maralia can confirm. Victoria (tk) 00:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes 39 and thanks Wehwalt and for the PR Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey[edit]

Reference formatting[edit]
  • Under the "References" section you have only "Notes"—"Citations" is a separate section. I assume this was a typo?
  • Probably or something. Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 15:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Citations" you format page ranges with the full numerals ("207–218"), but years are abbreviated (1978–79). Is there a reason for that?
  • There's only one. Up to Ceoil, but personally I like to indicate the page ranges fully. Not a big deal though and can be changed if you think it should be made consistent. Victoria (tk)
  • Is there some reason Ref 4 ("describes Dürer's early "excessive devotion" to van der Weyden as delaying his "inauguration [of] a new era in German painting".") is in "Citations" rather than "Notes"?
  • There's a bad checksum for the ISBN of "Albrecht Dürer the Elder with a Rosary"
  • I don't have either of these sources, but swapped out for ISBNs I can see. Victoria (tk) 00:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The {{reflist}} specifies a hard number of columns, while the {{refbegin}} and {{notelist-ua}} specify colwidths. The "inconsistency" isn't a problem per se, but specifying a hard number of columns is unfriednly to particularly large or small screens. Specifying a colwidth for all three would allow browsers to choose an appropriate number of columns
  • Good point and now fixed. Victoria (tk) 15:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check[edit]
  • Image replaced. Crop/detail has to be made again and re-uploaded. This probably was okay as it came from the Gemalderei website and only needed to have the "own work" removed. Victoria (tk) 19:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced. Spoiled for choice on these. Victoria (tk) 19:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will search for this and replace if/when found. Victoria (tk) 19:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went to remove it, but started to read and thought it was helpful in terms of re-use and such and such, written in German about a German painter. Someone else can decide. Victoria (tk) 19:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Ceoil fixed. Not seeing it. 19:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Everything else looks fine
  • Alt text would be nice, but apparently not required for FA

I might come back later to check out the prose.

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for doing these! Just noticed as I was logging out, so one of us will get to them tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 02:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Working through. We'll need a new version of File:1490 Duerer Bildnis von Barbara Duerer geb. Holper anagoria.JPG I think. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the new version is now there. I have trouble editing commons w/out a SUL login, but will try to tidy the rest later today. Apologies for the slow responses here but almost done! Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prose[edit]

Feel free to disagree with anything. You'll hurt my feelings, but sometimes that's for the best.

Lead[edit]
  • "either as pendants": Is there something to link to here, or can this be clarified? I assume they weren't meant to be hung from the neck. The Wiktionary entry isn't helpful either.
  • No we don't and probably should. I think note A explains it? Victoria (tk) 01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really: "They may have been conceived as a pair, intended to hang alongside each other" only "explains" it if you already know that's what "pendant" is supposed to mean. Maybe reword it to clarify the note is meant as a definition? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that Ceoil is working on this - I don't have that source. It is mentioned Pendant (disambiguation) here but I can't remember the policy about linking to dab pages. I do think eventually it should have its own article, but will have to scrounge for sources. Victoria (tk) 15:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The panels were reunited in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum's 2012 exhibition "The Early Dürer".": Is this the first time they were reunited? The wording "They have been separated since at least 1628, until Barbara's portrait—long considered lost—was reattributed in 1977" seems to imply otherwise. And shouldn't that be "had been", if they've since been reunited? Also, this doesn't appear in the body—the lead should summarize what's in the body.
  • Yes, I think this might have gotten lost or something. Working on it. Thanks for noting. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and influences[edit]
  • ""an exceptional degree of confidence, accuracy and sensitive feeling for its successful handling"": needs attribution
  • "but that indicative of a deeper interest": is that a stray "that", or was something else supposed to go in here?
Description[edit]
  • "when men were allowed more individual treatments, while female portraits": I think this would read better if you dropped the "when"
  • "After the death of her husband, she was": Immediately preceding here we were being told of "they", so Barbara should probably be specified
  • "After her death in 1514, he wrote", again, "he" should probably be specified
  • Will let someone else decide. Since the antecedent is the son, not sure and too many Durers, with the son and father. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like this has been rewritten. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (or as a "pretty upright girl" depending on the translation)": I might put that in a footnote
  • "young looking 40-year-old woman in the diptych": Not 36?
  • "have been described as "dark and serious".": by whom?
  • "shadowed with brown hatched paint": that's not hatching as I'm familiar with it—isn't hatching meant to achieve tonality, rather than simply being a crisscrossing of lines (unless you're describing the wrinkles themselves "poetically" as hatchwork)?
  • Can't check this - don't have this source. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dendrochronological dating": link to Dendrochronology: And isn't "dating" redundant? "Dendrochronology" is "tree-ring dating"
  • Probably but dislike having unfamiliar terms that force readers to link out of the article. Leaving for someone else to decide. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Provenance and attribution[edit]
  • "but disappears after mention": "but it disappears"?
  • "Hans Heironymus Imhoff": I think that's "Hieronymus" (two instances)
  • "[[Notname|anonymous]]" is an Easter Egg
    I dont understand why so. Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unlikely a reader will click through "anonymous", which is a very common term, and if they did they'd be surprised to find themselves at the Notname page rather than the Anonymity page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Uffizi?

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, got some of them, but not all. Working still. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Theres are good points. I query one, and see Victoria has adressed most. This close view is much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'd still like to see the "pendant" thing given a clearer explanation, but that's not enough to hold this up. Sorry it took me a while to get back to this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Curly, and sorry for the tardy responces from me; real life stepped in unfortunatly. Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Real life's a bitch. It's been keeping me from making much in the way of content contributions so far in 2014. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks from me too. Also got caught up with RL. Victoria (tk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified re 'pendants'. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Curly Turkey has picked up small things. I wasn't able to give this a very close reading, but I thought the prose was excellent and engaging, and brings to life these charming pictures. My only pick-up is that I suggest a para in the section on Barbara be edited to remove the repetition of "terminally ill". Fabulous work. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. Thanks for taking a look. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading and for the support! Victoria (tk) 02:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Victoria and Ceoil for all your work here, and sincere apologies for being absent thus far. I came down with bronchitis a few days after Christmas, and have spent most of the time since in a sleepy daze in front of the television. I started a second course of antibiotics a few days ago and am finally feeling on the mend, so I'll try to catch up here tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - engaging read - read it while on smartphone so couldn't copyedit but nothing really jumped out as crying to be tweaked. Only minor quibble was maybe the following:
...and is rare in contemporary German portraiture - I might say " and is rare in German portraiture of the period" as it is a (a) simpler and (b) not likely to be mistaken for "modern"

cngrats Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Cas. This was nice to see on a very very cold week! Glad to hear it looks okay on a smartphone! Victoria (tk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Cas. I reworded as per your suggestion. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool/nice work. Hot and humid here - miniheatwave just killed a rare grafted banksia in my garden :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 1 February 2014 (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/Portrait_Diptych_of_Dürer%27s_Parents/archive1&oldid=594646797"