Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portrait of Maria Portinari/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) 12:52, 5 June 2016.

Portrait of Maria Portinari

 * Nominator(s): Ceoil

A short article about a small 1470s painting, once the wing of a doner triptych. Maria was to fall from grace soon after via her husband's recklessness as branch manager for the Medici bank, but outlived him; for how long and in what circumstances we don't know. Hopefully she was comfortable, but seems to have died young. My interest here is the headdress, but in terms of fifteenth-century fashion its not all that elaborate; less is the new black. Suggestions welcome. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Double_Portrait_of_Charles_the_Bold_and_Isabella_of_Bourbon.jpg: the source link attributes the image to Wikipedia - see WP:CIRCULAR. Also needs a US PD tag
 * File:Hugo_van_der_Goes_Portinari_03.JPG needs original source details (author, date, etc) - uploader isn't the copyright holder. Same with File:Hugo_van_der_Goes_Portinari_04.JPG, File:AM._Lynen.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Nikki, there are all sorted now. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Interesting piece.  A few quibbles.
 * "and the elaborately detailed necklace and expensive gowns of Maria held up to reinforce this view." possibly "as evidenced by Maria's elaborately detailed necklace and expensive gowns."
 * "idealized" is this correct in British English?
 * "Margaret of York" link?
 * "The necklace is identical to that in van der Goes's Portinari Altarpiece " so you've told us a couple of paragraphs before, except you said it was similar. Suggest consolidation. The material related to the necklace is presently scattered through several short paragraphs.
 * "Probably the henin was kept relatively unadorned so as the necklace could be more emphasised" "as" should probably be "that". "More emphasised"?
 * "The necklace is very similar to that worn by Margaret of York at her wedding to Charles the Bold in 1468, an occasion the Portinari's attended." probably cut the apostrophe.
 * "That depiction of Charles closely resembles that of Thomas in facial features, while Isabella and Maria also bear striking similarities." Which depictions are we talking about? I see only one portrait on the piece.
 * "The portrait is very close to a depiction of Maria in van der Goes's Portinari Altarpiece, now in the Uffizi." No doubt so, but you've just linked the altarpiece very shortly before, with a varying description of its location (yes, I know they are really the same, but then why describe them differently?)
 * "the latter artist" I see only one artist mentioned in the paragraph so far. I'd just say "van der Goes".
 * "She was placed opposite her husband," As "she" lacks referents so far in this section, I might say "The portrait of Maria was placed opposite that of her husband ..."
 * "they were at least partially accessible to the public." I might say "somewhat" for "partially"
 * I would link apse
 * "but her fate is unknown after" possibly, "but her fate thereafter is uncertain".
 * "mona Maria" possibly choose a translation for mona? "Lady Maria", possibly?
 * the last paragraph of "Commission" seems out of place and not really related to what is around it. It may be most relevance to provenance.
 * "when it was leant by Léopold Goldschmidt of Paris" I'm not sure what is meant here.
 * "Art historian Catheline Périer-d'Ieteren, while noting that Memling's portrait faces were rarely underdrawn, this panel contains "thin yet confident incised lines" which may be preliminary drawings for Maria's face, perhaps made from life." I think something's wrong with this sentence, the "while" implies some sort of a contrast is coming up, but I'm not sure where we get to that.
 * "on Tommaso's inventory on his death" possibly "on the inventory taken upon Tommaso's death" or similar.
 * "Records indicate a small intact winged altarpiece which stayed in their possession until around the time of the Napoleonic occupation, it was likely was broken up around this time." some small modification needed here, possibly a semicolon for the comma.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt - Have begun to address these, but some are trickier than others; ie the structural issues, particularly wrt the necklace, which via re-gigging statements, I hope, are ok now. Many thanks for the close reading. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All addressed now, I think. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support very well done. Sorry to be so slow to come back.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt, I am always appreciative of your insight and advice. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments: A nice article. Looking good from a first read, just a few little questions. Forgive any stupidity on my part. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC) I'll come back for another look later, and look forward to supporting. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we say somewhere "This is a portrait of XXX who was XXX"? (I'm a big fan of the bleedin' obvious)
 * Yes. Have reorganised the lead along these lines. Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We never say in the main body who Tommaso was, or that he commissioned the portrait.
 * "and was commissioned as the right hand wing of a triptych": I'm terrible with these, but should there be some hyphens here? I am never sure.
 * "Although their size and the intimacy of surviving wings portraits suggests that they were commissioned for private prayer": Something not quite right here, unless I'm missing something. Should it be either "Although the size and intimacy of surviving wing portraits suggest..." or "Although their size and intimacy suggest the wings were commissioned..." (And should it be wing portrait rather than wings portrait? I'm ignorant on these things!)
 * "The 1501 inventory places both portraits as wings, with a central Virgin and Child panel; una tavoletta dipinta preg[i]ata cum nel mezo una immagine di Nostra Donna e delle bande si è Tommaso e mona Maria sua donna dipinti in deta tavoletta (a small, valuable panel painting, with an image of Our Lady in the middle and on the sides painted Tommaso and mona Maria his wife).[8]": Should there be some quotation marks around some of this?
 * " velvet like cloth": Hyphens?
 * Hi Sarastro1. Have begun to meet your demands, look forward to more later. Ceoil (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you let me know when you have done tweaking, I'll have another look. (It's nice to feel like I'm looking at something cultural!) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I'm about done now. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Support: An interesting little article. Two last minor points which don't affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Although their size and the intimacy of surviving wings portraits suggests that they were commissioned for private prayer": Still not sure about this. As written, it looks like all surviving wing portraits are intimate. Is this correct? Or does it mean the surviving wings of the couple?
 * Minor, fussy, pedantic point. There are two quotations in italian; the first has the translation in brackets, the second has the original text in brackets. For consistency, should we use the same order? Sarastro1 (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sarastro1 for taking the time to read my short article. Agree re your last points, now fixed, and cheers. Ceoil (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto
 * Commission
 * End of the first para closes without a cite.
 * Now cited to the Getty. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Description
 * "She is placed against a flat, opaque, dark background, her hands clasped in prayer." -- Since I've established that this isn't an offending splice, a preposition before the pronoun would make it sound a lot less like a beautiful quote without the quote marks.
 * Um added a "with her hands" - is that what you meant. prepositions and pronouns are foregin language to me. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * mea culpa, yes, sorry. In my defence, my parents would be annoyed if I didn't at least display some kind of evidence of a university education every now and again. ;)  Cassianto Talk   23:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Art historian Lorne Campbell..." -- I prefer the use of the definite article, although I appreciate that that this may form part of personal style.
 * Agree, but noticed there was a lot of "The art historian" constructs in there. Have gone with "the art hist" when there is no bio articel, and just by name when there is. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Her necklace is gilded and studded with pearls..." -- New para, new noun.
 * Regiged a few opening praras re this. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Art historian Dirk De Vos..." -- again here. I'm seeing a consistency with this, so you may wish to keep the American form of omitting the use of the definite article. But it's up to you, of course.
 * See above Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Although perhaps obvious, it may be better to confirm who's ear was exposed in the sentence: "Her ear was at one stage exposed...". Maria, or Ainsworth? Excuse my inadvertent flippancy, but there are some silly people out there!
 * Yeah, no; clarification makes sense. Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Provenance
 * "In 1916, the art historian Max J. Friedländer..." Switch to the BrEng form here, as per above.
 * See above Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Art historian Catheline Périer-d'Ieteren..." -- oops!
 * I'll get my coat. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Support -- Adopt or disregard at your discretion. A very nice little article!  Cassianto Talk   22:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions, catches and support Cass. I am always appreciative of outside views, and this was most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The pleasure was all mine.   Cassianto Talk   23:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- For the benefit of any reviewers who might be interested, we're still looking for a source review for formatting and reliability here. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Source review: Spot checks not done. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Everything else looks fine Sarastro1 (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All sourcing looks reliable and to an appropriate quality.
 * For consistency, ref 11 should be 348–49
 * In the source list, Ainsworth 1994 does not seem quite right. Unless I've missed something, the title of the essay is italicised but the work isn't. Isn't this usually the other way round? But I may have missed something obvious.
 * We need a location for Burn in the sources
 * Title needs italicising for Grössinger
 * Hi Sarastro1, all done. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.