Template:Did you know nominations/Lotte Brand Philip

Lotte Brand Philip

 * ... that Lotte Brand Philip was one of the few art historians of her generation to resist intimidation from the Nazi party, only leaving Germany in 1941?
 * ALT1 ... that German art historian Lotte Brand Philip may have solved a 500-year-old art mystery while on a walk in downtown New York City in 1964?

Created by Maralia (talk). Nominated by Ceoil (talk) at 23:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reviewed: Ghafiri, Hinawi


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article looks okay, but the first hook is not really supported by the article prose, and with regard to the alt hook, there is nothing to suggest the art mystery (as opposed to the work itself) is "500 years old" - in fact the article only traces the mystery back to 1932, so either the hooks and the article need to conform to each other or a new hook found. Gatoclass (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood on both counts; working on this. Maralia (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've written a new section, Lotte Brand Philip. Will work up a new improved hook tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've written a new section, Lotte Brand Philip. Will work up a new improved hook tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT2 ... that Albrecht Dürer's paintings of his parents were reunited in 2012 after art historian Lotte Brand Philip rediscovered the portrait of his mother which had been lost since the 17th century?
 * This hook is based on the new section, linked immediately above. Maralia (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT3 ... that the panels of Albrecht Dürer's Portrait Diptych of his Parents were only reunited in 2012 after art historian Lotte Brand Philip rediscovered a wing considered lost since the 17th century?
 * Note: ALT3, at 247 characters, is over the limit of 200. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  20:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Edited. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Striking original hook and ALT1 per earlier review. Suggesting the following minor modifications to ALT2 and ALT3—"identified" strikes me as a better word than "rediscovered". I've also added "thought" before "lost" in ALT2 (ALT3 uses "considered", but that would make ALT2 too long) and in ALT3, the words "a wing" weren't immediately clear to me so I've used "the half" instead:
 * ALT2a: ... that Albrecht Dürer's paintings of his parents were reunited in 2012 after art historian Lotte Brand Philip identified the portrait of his mother, thought lost since the 17th century?
 * ALT3a: ... that the panels of Albrecht Dürer's Portrait Diptych of his Parents were only reunited in 2012 after art historian Lotte Brand Philip identified the half considered lost since the 17th century?
 * ALT2a is 198 characters, and ALT3a is 193 characters, both just under the 200 character max. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have done most of the verification of this nom, but am having a little trouble confirming the hook because the translation from German on google scholar is unintelligible. The article states that the "identification of the Nuremberg portrait as the missing diptych image of Barbara Holper was not universally accepted for some time,[9] but has been borne out by infrared examination of the paintings in 2012.[12]" The claim that the painting was identified by "infrared examination" is cited to this source, which states (in the original German):


 * Viele der Fragen bezüglich der Zusammengehörigkeit mit dem Vaterbildnis ließen sich durch die Infrarotreflektografie-Untersuchung des Florentiner Porträts 2012 klären: In Folge einer grundlegenden Konzeptänderung im Entstehungsprozess des Vaterbildnisses muss dieses, entgegen bisheriger Annahmen, vor dem Bildnis der Mutter entstanden sein.


 * which google scholar translates as:


 * Many of the questions about the unity with the Father portrait could be clarified by the infrared reflectography investigation of the Florentine portraits 2012: As a result of a fundamental change of approach in the development process of the father portrait needs this, contrary to previous assumptions that have been done before the image of the mother.


 * - which I find unintelligible. I might ask a German speaker to translate that for me before completing this review. Gatoclass (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 'des Porträts' is surely a genitive singular. Perhaps 'ließen' as 'allows', rather than 'could'.
 * The 2012  infrared reflectography investigation of the Florentine portrait allows the clarification of many of the questions about the unity with the Father portrait: as a result a  fundamental change of approach to the development process of the father portrait is needed, differing from assumptions made before the picture of the mother came to light. William Avery (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol voting keep.svg It would be nice to have a more definitive confirmation, but on balance I think there is enough info in the article to validate the hook. I'm going with a (slightly trimmed) version of ALT2a as I think it's easier to read than ALT3a. Gatoclass (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gato, I'd be happy to provide additional sources and/or quotes, but it's not clear to me which detail you're trying to confirm from the German source on the infrared study. Perhaps you are considering the infrared study as proof of her identification of the portrait, and therefore supporting the word 'identified' in the hook? If that's the case, I should clarify in the article: although her identification of the painting was disputed by the GNM (the museum that had unknowingly sat on a Dürer painting for 50 years), it was otherwise widely accepted by the art world. The infrared study took place in 2012 (some 25 years after her death), and while its findings served as confirmation, we would still be calling this an 'identification' had the infrared never happened. Let me know how to address your concerns and I'll happily clarify. Maralia (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm not sure why you are responding this way after I had already approved the hook, but since you ask - my main concern was that the article lacks a definitive statement that the identification is universally accepted as correct in the art world. The German language reference quoted above does refer to "the Mother portrait" and the painting was clearly presented as such in the exhibition, but this doesn't really demonstrate that that interpretation has broad acceptance. On the other hand, from reading both articles there seems to be pretty good evidence that the identification is correct, and in any case (if one wants to split hairs) the hook doesn't actually state that the painting was correctly identified, only that it was "identified", so I thought on balance the hook could be accepted. On the other hand, if you can add more info to the article demonstrating the identification has wide acceptance, that would help. Gatoclass (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)