Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Annunciation (Memling)/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2015.

Annunciation (Memling)

 * ''Nominator(s): ,

Hans Memling painted this pretty Annunciation scene around 1480. It's simple, striking, and has interesting iconography, yet someone must not have liked it very much because when a Polish prince found it in one of his family's estates early in the 19th century, it had been pierced through by an arrow. Early in the 20th century it was brought to America, transferred to canvas, and now resides in New York at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Ceoil helped with suggestions, copy-editing, image placement, and encouragement. Victoria (tk) 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

 Comments from Support Maile (talk)

The word "stunning" comes to mind about the images. All images are on Commons and appropriately licensed. Is there a way you could scan "Boucicaut hours visitation" so it's not crooked? The prose is well-done, almost as if walking through a museum and having a tour guide explain it all. — Maile (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for checking the images. We discussed the crooked Boucicaut hours and decided to leave it as (it's really hard to get scans of these centuries-old books) but I did initially upload a cropped version on the source, and can revert to that if consensus is to be straight. I can't load images at the moment - a thunderstorm came through about an hour after I nominated this and I've had on-and-off internet connectivity since, but when that gets fixed I'll take another look. Victoria (tk) 18:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * RE the crooked image - the original is here. The margins are lost if cropped, and it's probably worth having the margins to show that it's from a book, whereas the other paintings aren't. Victoria (tk) 00:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for answering. I'm not going to oppose this nomination based one crooked picture. As far as I'm concerned, you've answered the only issue I had. — Maile  (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's straightened now, , thanks to Sarah. Victoria (tk) 19:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks really great now! — Maile  (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm now happy to be giving this article my support. I just gave it a second thorough read-through.  The sources come through credible publishers.  The prose and the way you have laid this out visually is good.  I was particularly impressed with the close-up of the light shining through the flask, and the detailed explanation of the symbolism. I can find no fault with this and think you made a great presentation of the subject matter. — Maile  (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks and thanks for taking the time to revisit. Victoria (tk) 20:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the IR Nikkimaria. Victoria (tk) 20:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. I've read this through twice. It's beautifully written and illustrated. The symbolism is explained well and is fascinating. Very happy to support it. Sarah (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi - thanks so much for taking the time to read through twice and for the support. I think it's fascinating too. Victoria (tk) 15:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Support and comments from Squeamish Ossifrage
I don't see anything here that would be fatal to promotion, although I do note a few small issues that should be easy to resolve. I did not perform a thorough prose review; as usual, I'm focused primarily on references and reference formatting.
 * The Hans Memling navigational template in the article foot lists Annunciation as (c. 1467–1470), but that's not at all what is reflected in the text.
 * Good catch, thanks. I believe that's for another painting, but it needed fixing. Victoria (tk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Are page ranges available for the journal sources: Blum (this one is 43–58), Koslow, Meiss, Weale?
 * If an entry from a journal is used and its page numbers provided in text, then the page range isn't always necessary in the references as long as it's been formatted consistently. I'll double-check MLA (Modern Language Association) but we're not required to adhere to a specific citation guide/style here, and because there are quotations I prefer to provide the page numbers in text. Victoria (tk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * page numbers added. Victoria (tk) 19:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Should the publisher location of Turnhout provide either province or country for context? It's certainly not a widely known location.
 * It's in Belgium. I just looked on WorldCat and they don't identify it. For consistency we'd have to add country to all of entries, which I suppose we could do. Thinking about it. Victoria (tk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed the Jolly source location is already given as "Farnham, Surrey", which made me think something should be done for Turnhout. New York is the only other publisher location given and it, of course, is on the shortlist of cities that never needs further clarification. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a fair point; I've added Belgium. Victoria (tk) 20:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In general, I don't see any significant modern sources overlooked, so this does appear to be a comprehensive review of literature. I find one 1930s journal article that appears to be a comparative study of this scene in period art. I don't expect it would have anything novel to add (and I cannot access it from my location today), but you might want to peek in case I'm wrong:
 * Thanks, I noticed last night I have that article bookmarked on Jstor but it's a huge file and I couldn't download it. I will take another look and if there's anything there. If so, will add to the article. Victoria (tk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re Robb's article - I've skimmed it quickly now so as to remind myself why I didn't use it. It's quite good, but goes into very specific detail about the iconography used in the Annunciation scenes in general; regarding this painting it only mentions Memling's debt to van der Weyden, which is covered. Thanks, though, for reminding me about this. Victoria (tk) 20:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds totally reasonable to me. It just came up on my comprehensiveness check, and I couldn't pass up mentioning a 40+ page article that seemed to be germane. With that taken care of, I think I'm satisfied that you're reviewed the extant literature quite admirably. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds totally reasonable to me. It just came up on my comprehensiveness check, and I couldn't pass up mentioning a 40+ page article that seemed to be germane. With that taken care of, I think I'm satisfied that you're reviewed the extant literature quite admirably. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In any case, nicely assembled, and I'm happy to offer my support on referencing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks looking and for the comments, and the support. I'm off to check my MLA guide and will report back here. Victoria (tk) 20:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.