Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portrait of a Lady (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 SandyGeorgia 18:23, 24 April 2010.

Portrait of a Lady (van der Weyden)

 * Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Short article about a small c 1460 Netherlandish painting. Helpful peer review here, and thanks to Steve for a thorough copyedit. Ceoil (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 11:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Images: Use {7{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} to indicate PD-100 copyright: applicable almost to all images.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is unclear if "Detail showing the woman's tightly crossed fingers and red belt" is the "Portrait of a Woman" crop or not. State explicitly
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Petrus Christus, Portrait of a young girl.jpg: No source. Add template from commons
 * Image has been replaced. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Rogier van der weyden, ritratto di donna, washington, dettaglio mani.jpg: Fill description and author fields correctly.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Portrait of a Woman X-radiograph.JPG: I don't think that PD-100 applies as it is a 1937 x-radiograph.
 * FU rational added. Its one FU image, and discussed, so I am comfortable. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the fair use is valid. Without this image too, the article is as encyclopaedic as it is now. Just move the radiograph info to prose and remove the image. I suppose "Infra-red reflectography reveals..." talks about findings similar to the 1937 radiograph. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagged an img description in gallery. How is the particular influenced by the Portrait of a Woman or Van der Weyden needs a ref.
 * Reffed. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Use.
 * This is not mandatory. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If Memling was also influenced by the Portrait of a Woman, it needs to be also noted in the prose (not only in a caption). -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 16:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed look t the images, though I'm not sure your last point is necessary. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Crossed out some. Added comments about fair use image. Two more things:


 * Was Memling specifically influenced by the article subject? If so, it needs to in the prose too.
 * Memling was a pupil of van der Weyden, now mentioned in the text. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Were there any more scientific examinations besides the 1937 radiograph? -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 06:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that section comes from the holding gallery. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support As usual, excellent product from the workshop of Ceoil (so there's no confusion about my sudden appearance here, I frequently contribute to visual arts topics, per recent DYK postings at my talk page ). Just a couple of thoughts on the description:
 * From the lede, Its vivid contrasts of light and shade enhance the almost unnatural beauty and Gothic elegance of the model is at odds with the subsequent and accurate description The woman's head is evenly lit, leaving no strong tonal contrasts on her skin. It's not contrasts of light and shade, but contrasts of light and dark shapes.
 * Reworded as vivid contrasts of darkness and light. Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also from lede, The composition is built from a series of geometric shapes created by angles of light pouring from the top right of the picture--does this derive from a source?, because it appears that the diffused light is coming strongly from neither left nor right, but rather from the front and slightly above. If the light source was clearly from the upper right, modeling of forms would be more obvious, the left side of her face (her anatomical right) would not be so fully illuminated (per or ), and her headdress on that side would receive some cast shadow. (since writing the preceding, I've referred to a larger reproduction, and can more easily see that the forehead appears to be lit--subtly--from the right. There's not much angle though, and there are discrepancies, including the hands, which appear to be lit from the left. Well, that's quite enough about that, eh.) JNW (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder, too, about the source of The woman's left ear is set unnaturally high and far back, parallel to her eyes rather than to her nose; the position of her ear is consistent with other portraits on the page, and indicates the perspective of the head, tipped down slightly.
 * This is what the source says, though within a discussion of how Rogier sometimes empolyed painterly distortions. Perhalps it was a device also used by Campin (his tutor) and Memling (his pupil)? Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's what the source says, it stays in. JNW (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have attributed specifically to Schneider. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done. I'd also suggest nominating both Ceoil's and Riggr Mortis' talk pages for FA review. Wonderful reading and profoundly instructive. JNW (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you JNW for you usual insightful comments. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment: This is a beautiful article. I haven't finished reading it yet, but wondered whether in this sentence: ( instead, like Van Eyck, here he uses the dark plain to concentrate the woman's face and quiet self-possession.) plain is a misspelling of plane? If not the sentence is a bit awkward. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * , yes your first guess is right. Thanks for the other edits Truthkeeper. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And one more question: does the source mention whether the woman plucked or shaved her hairline as was common during that period? Otherwise, wonderfully done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The assumption seems to be, from the source, that they are plucked; I suppose given the lack of stubble that shaving might entail. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just curious. Always wondered how those women achieved that look. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From the sources - and indirect personal experience - plucked. Also through the high pinned forehead (raises the eyebrows). Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Surprisingly informative and interesting for such a focused article. My one question concerns the red ink - on the Christus portrait - Portrait of a Female Donor, why highlight it and link it now? Otherwise well done...Modernist (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Red link removed for your pleasure. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer - She looks like one of my old teachers...but I didn't hold that against my VA project cohort Ceoil when I said support...Modernist (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: I enjoyed reviewing this at peer review, since when it has further attention which has made it even better. One thing that drew me in was that the "lady" in question bears a strong resemblance to a former girlfriend of mine—though that does not influence my decision to support, I hasten to say. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * She's 550 years old and last had a wash in 1980? Steve  T • C
 * That's why ex. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I was recruited to give this a bit of a copy-edit last month; though I'm no expert, at that point it didn't seem quite finished, content-wise. I've watched the changes since then, and it's a lot more rounded now, with an added layer of detail and better image choices adding to the more professional aspect. This is nice work. Steve  T • C 07:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


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