Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych/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 not promoted by Ian Rose 00:00, 8 June 2012.

Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych

 * Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fairly worrying c 1430-40 Jan van Eyck diptych. If even half of its prophecies are correct, we're all in serious trouble. Has been a difficult article to piece together; thanks to the unflagging Truthkeeper88 for providing sources, and to Kafka Liz for the copyedits and advice. Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment – Looks interesting; I've never reviewed an art article, but this piece looks quite compelling ... will put up a full review soon. Until then, I think the last paragraph of "Attribution" needs a citation. Sasata (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks for spotting. Tks Sasata, looking forward to engaging. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments Comparing with FAs The Entombment (Bouts) and The Magdalen Reading
 * The word "vulgar" in the lead seems inappropriate, considering its other connotations which are more common use as well as tone (vulgar is a colloquialism).
 * Personally I disagree, as van eyck so obviously stove to present them that way. But have removed and couched the description. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Description: some info is repeated. "The Crucifixion wing is divided into three horizontal sections" is in the start of the section and then again in "Crucifixion". IMO, Description needs to be reorganized into 3 parts with no repetition: a general para about the whole structure of the diptych and the specifics about the two scenes.
 * This has been heavily reworked, regiged and expanded since. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Description: "It is unknown if the work was commissioned ... " seems out of place.
 * Gone. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comprehensiveness: Details of the Latin inscriptions is needed.
 * Working. They are mentioned on the musueaum website, but in passing; I want to track thwem back to the origional sources. This is the reason for my tawrdiness, sorry. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, worked in several mentions and translations. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

-- Redtigerxyz Talk 19:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Redtigerxyz; mostly done, I need to reintegrate some of the material cut from the decription overview, and make some additions re the inscrioptions. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Holy Family" includes Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Only 1 of them is shown mourning: "members of the holy family writhing in loss and grief in the foreground" Confused???
 * Yikes; fixed. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "The mourner's reflection can be seen in the shield ... " What reflection? Can't see any even in this version ...
 * You can see it in the gold coloured shield on the back of the dude in purple with the lance and curved sword standing in the area between the women and horse men. I've added a clarifier, but can put up a crop too it it might help. Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see it in close ups from the books. Its the guy in purple though I might have to clarify there. Ceoil (talk)


 * "Crucifixion": After lower section is discussed, there is no mention of the middle section with men on horseback etc. Suddenly the top section. ("The narrative of the panel reads broadly upwards")
 * Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Inscriptions on cross, Michael's shield etc. missing
 * A great deal added on these. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Some historians believe the central panel may have been stolen by one of Tatistcheff's servants" No context about Tatistcheff. Prince DP Tatistcheff is not introduced yet.
 * Sorted (literally; I moved the paras about). Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * MET Museum names Czar Nicholas I in provenance
 * Ok mentioned, with some context added. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose on comprehensiveness and organization concerns. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apostles, seated on benches, not mentioned. A Google search showed that Burroughs (jstor) mentions them. Peter carries the Key, some others carry books.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nude humans seek shelter in Mary's rope - not mentioned. Then kings, popes?, clergy, monks etc. all different people in various attires... I am missing the details.
 * Working Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Expanded. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "demons in both fantastical and animal form. The devils include thosen shaped as rats ... " demons? -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redtigerxyz, I'm not meeting you point for point as Im hearing you overall. Many tks for the close review, and bear with me if you dont mind. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Reference: Seabag Montefiore, 129 (Inconsistent). Should be Simon (last name?), 129 OR reference needs to be corrected. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Simon is his first name; Seabag Montefiore his double barred family name. I dont see a problem? Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All very good points, working through. We went on a source crawl and found a lot of material on JSTOR, adding, but nothing yet on the (many) inscriptions and free text across the panels. Bear with me and thank you very much for the detailed look. v happy with your input so far. Ceoil (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update The artticle has grown quite a bit over the weekend, with a lot of material added on the inscriptions in paticular. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not read the whole article. Comments based on "Last Judgement" section.
 * "hell, the Earth and heaven": why a the here? In the convention followed, it should be earth OR Hell and Heaven for consistency.
 * Removed; it should be obvious. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Matthew 25:41: context of this inscription is very important. The article does not highlight the significance of the phrase. It is a reference to The Sheep and the Goats discourse by Christ.
 * Started on this. 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * " ... demons. Those assuming recognisable forms include those shaped as rats, snakes, pigs, as well as devils in the guise of a bear and a donkey. " So rats, snakes, pigs are demons, and bear and donkey are devils. Right?
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Adoravi tetgrammathon agla: meaning ?
 * Explained as far as possible. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of The Virgin, can please use the common name even known to non-Christians: Mary, mother of Jesus.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Venite benedicti patris mei is Matthew 25:34 (The Sheep and the Goats). Significance missing
 * a lance and crown of thorns, a sponge and nails are Arma Christi. Significance
 * Well, they were already linked, but now made more explicit. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Things not mentioned:
 * On the right end of Peter's bench, Fall of man is carved
 * In the crowd, a pope, a cardinal, an emperor, a king are seen
 * Mentioned. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Though the article has improved, it is not comprehensive still. The paintings are filled with iconography and inscriptions, allusions to the Last Judgement narrative, which needs to be highlighted. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Michael: sword, peacock feathers
 * Understood. Ceoil (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment and disclaimer - I've done a lot of work trying to find sources in regards to the iconography and symbolism, and basically the sources for this painting have been bled dry. In my view it's not necessary to mention each piece of symbolism in the painting because there is so much of it. Although Ceoil wants this to be archived, just wanted to mention, that I can't see what more can be done. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Check alphabetization of sources
 * Further reading should be an independent section, not a subsection
 * Ainswort or Ainsworth?
 * Where is New Haven?
 * Pages for Nickel? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks, I've fixed these. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please archive, and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question for delegates - although Ceoil has asked for this to be archived, I'd finish the review for him. Would that be that okay? Truthkeeper (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I came across this one yesterday and saw the archive request, but also your suggestion that it was in fact comprehensive, so decided to wait a bit longer and see whether there were further comments in response. I have to say that given it's been open the best part of a month with one oppose and no declarations of support, I have to lean towards archiving. If your comments are likely to be more in the nature of advice for a subsequent run at FAC, then that should take place on the article talk page, not in this nom (I'm not trying to assume, more querying). Sasata also indicated he would be doing a full review, which might have helped keep this alive, but that doesn't seem to have occurred. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, in that case I'll let it go and let you archive. It is comprehensive though; certainly there's no more in the sources, and at the risk of OR or synth, I think all has been done that can be done. Thanks for the reply. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw - completely unclear what you mean in regards to my comments being taken to the talk page. At any rate, I've struck my comments. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked for the FAC to remain open to make further comments, and I indicated (sorry if it wasn't clear) that I was leaning more towards archiving and that any further review comments could be placed on the article's talk page. Given there's been no further input from reviewers, and Ceoil's request still stands, I'll be archiving it shortly. If you and Ceoil would like to work on it further, it can be nominated again at FAC after a minimum of two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; I was more or less waiting until Redtigerxyz's considered his concerns resolved, as new information was still being added. Sasata (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


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