Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virgin and Child Enthroned (van der Weyden)/archive1

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2017 [1].

Virgin and Child Enthroned (van der Weyden)

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Ayesha23

c. 1433 Marian portrait attributed to Rogier van der Weyden, showing Mary enthroned in a niche which is presumably fixed to a Gothic church wall. The panel was once half of a diptych, later broken up. Those with an interest in medieval Christian iconography (including hardened atheists like me) will find much to enjoy in this rich and emotional panel painting. It is of interest to specialists as a prime example of the transition between two major art historical periods. Ceoil (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hand et al not cited. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have included them now. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Gerda

I love the artist, and like the article already, with only minor concerns. One general: I grew up on Wikipedia with no left images right below a header, because the reader's eye "wants" to continue reading below the header, not jump to the right, - consider.

Lead

"The panel is filled with Christian iconography, including representations of prophets, the Annunciation, Christ's infancy and resurrection, and Mary's coronation in heaven." - Only two of these terms are linked, but I have been told to link even terms such as stanza. We have a mixed readership who may not know what Christian iconography is, what Christians think are prophets, and who Christ is, perhaps also Mary. I'd prefer infancy of Jesus, using the given name for a baby ;) - Who says Mary's Coronation is in Heaven? - I'm not sure about capitalization, but think Annunciation and Coronation, or annunciation and coronation. There must be an article about the infancy, even if we know little ;)
I'd like more lead, but will look at the rest before perhaps saying what more.
I think the lead has been expanded since Ceoil (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second round: I'd like Thyssen explained in lead and body.
ok Ceoil (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

"The smallest extant work", - how small is it? ~~Dimensions anywhere?~~ I found them now (searching for the word), but miss them in the body, and think they are much easier to find here.
Done Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps link Gothic sculpture?
Done Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
consider to speak about the niche before about shadows cast on it (and before details such as the hair behind the ear)
Shirley Blum is mentioned here first, saying just "Blum", - better introduce her a bit?
Done Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Claus Sluter's c 1395–1403 Well of Moses" - I am not happy with the order, how about: Claus Sluter's Well of Moses (c. 1395–1403)? - same for other occurrences of more than just one year
Done Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Champmol is unexplained and unlinked, linked only in the caption.
Done Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, those who said "we have a law, and according to that law he must die" (Book of John), were no prophets and no judges, but those arguing with Pilate. Source? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dyptich

"his Madonna Standing" doesn't refer to St. George ;)

Done Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in the link, please spell out Descent from the Cross, - I know what you mean but only because I love it.

Done Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dating and attribution

I'd like to read some of this in the lead: the dating and attribution, and also about the "sculptural" aspect.
Can you get the image more to the context of that painting, and perhaps end the article on that outlook, rather than another dating?

Saw the Descent last November, again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky you! Working through these points. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All address now, far as I can. Ceoil (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

I see you're working on it, if any of these are obsolete, I apologise.

"it appears to be bulk-less and as if she has only one leg. " Is bulk-less an accepted term? insubstantial? lack substance? lack bulk?

went for 'lack volume' Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"both with foreshortening and the depiction of a body under clothing" I might add an "in" before "the"

ok Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There are symmetrical difference between the left and right hand sides of the painting. " Should "difference" be plural?

done Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"While they may appear incompatible with the architectural setting" maybe "incongruous" for "incompatible", if the source will support.
"the breath of the buttress contradicts the spatial dept" there seem multiple spelling errors.

done Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Champmol" this is never linked or described in prose, but is in an image caption. Not certain that's enough.

liked and described niw Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Lorne Campbell attributes the work to van der Weyden's workshop,[15] while John Ward attributes Campin" sounds like there should be a "it to" after the second "attributes". I might suggest using a synonym for one of the attributes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agree, done Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have most of these, valid points. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Virgin_and_Child_Enthroned_(van_der_Weyden)_Detail2.jpg: the first tag doesn't make sense here
File:Dijon_mosesbrunnen3.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is ok now, Nikkimaria I'm not sure what is required with the 2nd - have searched around for similar images, it seems to be in order? Help needed. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current tag covers the photographer's copyright; because this work is in France, which does not have freedom of panorama, we should also include a tag for the original sculpture. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which tag is needed - I don't understand "for the original sculpture" in this context. Sorry for being slow. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it anyhow - wasn't integral, article is more concise without. But thanks. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

looking now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~The panel is one three surviving van der Weyden's where both Madonna and Child are enclosed in this way.~~ ~~- should there be two 'of's here? One after 'one' and one after 'surviving'?~~

~~while John Ward credits it to Campin and gives a date of c. 1435~~ ~~- might be worth adding who/what Ward is (art historian?) so we can assess his comments in context~~

Support on comprehensiveness and prose ~~Otherwise~~ looks fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas, have fixed these. Ceoil (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Gerda Arendt, do you have any further comments to make here? Also, have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two of my points received a "Done" note, thank you, Ceoil! What about the others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek! Working through the remainders.... Ceoil (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from The Bounder

Excellent article, very well put together; readable and interesting. These are all a bit nit-picky, as the article is in excellent shape.

I'm not sure what is meant by "The smallest extant work by van der Weyden, the painting is a Madonna Lactans. Do you mean that "The painting Virgin and Child Enthroned, the smallest extant work by van der Weyden, is a Madonna Lactans? As this is the opening section I think we need to make it clear in the opening line.
What do you mean by "Betraying the influence"? Do you mean it shows the influence, or that it is traitorous to the influence? (Ditto for van Eyck in the next para) I appreciate this may seem a trite point, but there will be people who are completely confused by the meaning here!
Should right hand by hyphenated? (Not entirely sure of this, which is only a suspicion – although our own article suggests it should be "left- and right-hand") Ditto "left hand" in the Diptych section
You have British "colour" and American "center" (I know there are other variants of English, but I don't think any of them allow colour and center).
I'm uncomfortable with putting into Wiki's voice that "Reasonable deductions can be made as to the identity of other figures": can we not say "The art historian XXX deduces that..." or similar
The circa (at "c 1395") should have a full stop after it
Is "Northern art" worth piping to Northern Renaissance#Art? Non-European readers may be confused by which "north" is referred to
"decidedly unexcited Libyan princess": that looks like editorialising
Ditto "rather obvious symbolism"
"1432–34" I think we are now supposed to put date ranges as "1432–1434" (another pointless RfC decision that goes against common sense)
The caption for the final image (Descent from the Cross) looks like a full sentence and should have a full stop.

I have no idea on the range of available sources, or the subject matter itself, so this is focussed on the prose element only. I hope these help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These helped a lot and I disagree with none of your points; all addressed now. Many thanks for the read and look. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Support. My pleasure. It's a fine article on a lovely work, so moving to support. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

There are two Birkmeyers in the refs, 1961 & 1962. I have the one published in 1961 and its page ranges match what's in the article, so if the one from 1962 isn't used, then needs sorting. Otherwise everything is fine, the sources are all scholarly, no formatting errors I can see, no other problems.
I might get back for a full review but can't promise; made a few minor copyedits. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same paper; first published in 1961. I have pfs of both publications, but now ref'd to the first, in 61. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, that explains the pagination. All is well then. Victoriaearle (tk) 01:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! I survived a source review from you (shiver me timers!). For disclosure: Myself and Victoria have collaborated on many articles in the past, and we are friends; the comments are intended as helpful rather than critical - in this case we share familiarity with the source material, hence her opinion is highly valued on matters of fact and form, and is actively sought by me. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I'm promoting this now, but I noticed that on my monitor, the image in the Diptych section interrupted the heading of the next section. That might just be me, but I just thought it was worth mentioning. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.