Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus, Berlin)/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 GrahamColm 03:57, 15 August 2014.

Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus)

 * ''Ceoil (talk), Johnbod (talk)

This portrait often appears in popular overviews of 15th century art, but has recieved relatively little scholarship. Painted around 1470, it contains many Early Netherlandish and Gothic characteristics, and sits uneasily between the two. This was a terribly difficult article to write. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

 * Portrait of a Young Girl redirects to Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus, Berlin). Why is it disambiguated?
 * It would I think be wrong to call the article by such a common title, especially one made up by modern curators. In fact we don't have any other articles on paintings called this, so there is as yet no disam page. There's a case for lumping it with Portrait of a Young Woman (a disam page). I don't think she is in fact what a "young girl" normally means, but I suppose Berlin in 1820-odd had no word for teenager. Perhaps we should do a stub on the Durer of the same name, as it happens in the same museum. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll leave that to you to deceide, but why (Christus, Berlin) rahter than just (Christus)? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is often refered in the literature as the Berlin portrait. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * the inline cites are not required in the lead; it would be nice (cleaner & friendlier) to see them moved out
 * They are MOS compliant, and the quote at least requires one. Typically, reviewers are more likely to complain in the opposite direction. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know they're MoS compliant, and I wouldn't oppose over them, I just think it would be more reader-friendly without them. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * a "Background" section would be nice---there's a lot of background taken for granted in the prose, not just diretly with regards to painting, but also stuff such as "the patronage of the newly emerging middle class, secularising portraiture, and removing it from the preserve of royalty"
 * That's all in the FA Early_Netherlandish_painting; I've made the link clearer (lead 1st line). One could add a bit. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume it would be, but it shouldn't be assumed that many have clicked through before reading this article. If it could be summed up in a couple of sentneces, I think it would be helpful. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The MoS recommends "c." with a period, but doesn't specifically say to avoid "c" without a period ...
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Waagen associated lettering; Joel Upton supports; Max Friedländer proposed: Who?
 * Gustav Waagen link moved to first mention, and explained. I don't like saying that people who one would expect from the context to be art historians are in fact just that. Of course if they are not that's a different matter. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

 * a small oil on oak panel painting: "oil-on-oak" should be hyphenated here, but I think it would read better as a small oil panel painting on oak  or a small oil painting on oak panel
 * Done Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * that of Netherlandish portraiture: is there something good to link to here?
 * Early_Netherlandish_painting, done Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The wall sets her in a recognisable interior: recognizable as an interior, or as a particular interior? What is "recognisable"?
 * Gone now, I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It is both a major stylistic advance in Christus' oeuvre and that of Netherlandish portraiture, not just that the sitter is no longer set against a flat, neutral background; here she is placed in an airy, three-dimensional, realistic setting.: the "not just" signals to the reader that something like a "but" would follow, but instead we're greeted with a semicolon in a somewhat jarring manner. It also makes the assumption that the reader would know that earlier paintings had "flat, nutral background"s.
 * Redone. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * her complex stare is reserved, but alert and intelligent: does "alert and intelligent" contrast with "reserved"?
 * Enough, I think Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Art historian Joel Upton described the lady as resembling "a polished pearl, almost opalescent, lying on a cushion of black velvet.": I'm not a fan of these kinds of quotes in the lead.  Is it widely quoted on the literature on the painting, so that it would somehow constitute part of the "overview" of the subject that the lead is supposed to be?
 * No, but since one is never able to say anything enthusiastic about works thanks to the ever-vigilant PEACOCK patrol, this is best done by quotation (would be in any case) and it is best done at the start. No, the quotation is not well-known, but little is about this work. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, at the very least, the quote should also appear in the body that the lead's supposed to summarize. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it works like that. Obviously, one only needs it once (like the measurements, which often appear in the lead for painting FAs). Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The Northern Renaissance article capitalizes "Northern Renaissance". Is the lowercase a common, accepted alternative?
 * Caps added. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * the most significant successor of the second generation: at first blush, this reads as if he had succeeded the second generation.
 * Rewritten Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Description

 * naturalistic enough to be a space within her home: what about being "naturalistic" would classify it as a space in her home?
 * rewritten Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * which Sterling notes is indebted to van Eyck: I assume the influence of van Eyck rather than the man himself?
 * Yes, is this unclear? Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * oriental eyes: link to Epicanthic fold? and isn't "oriental" kind of old-fashioned?
 * the Gothic ideal: something good to link to here?
 * Don't think so. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * and seems possessesed by an unusual elegance: "unusual" in what sense?
 * Reworded to make clearer. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * some art historians have described as unnerving.: such as?
 * virtually unprecedented in Italian portrait painting at that time: aren't we in the Low Countries?
 * Clarified Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * rarely found, if at all,: is there some question as to whether it's found at all?
 * Reworded Ceoil (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * the male chaperon hat, which always has a long tailing cornette, sometimes worn in this way: I was going to link to cornette, but the article says it's "a piece of female headwear". Do you know more about this?
 * Well yes, as I wrote chaperon. Not sure what the question is. The female wimple cornettes are different. Here the girl wears one of the male scarf-like sort, which is not that unusual on women too. Added a bit. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * almost white skin and almost sculpted bone structure: "almost ... almost"
 * Now "almost white skin and strong bone structure" Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * and even Robert Campin: this is jarring—we shouldn't assume the reader knows what Campin's advances were or what their relation to Christus' work might have been
 * Cut "even" Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * in favour of an elongation of form; emphasised by way the narrow, slight upper body and head are, according to art historian Robert Suckale, "heightened by the V-shaped neckline of the ermine and the cylindrical hat.": I'm having trouble parsing this. Something's wrong; I'm not sure what.
 * Rewritten (a "the" was missing for a start). Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Identity

 * of the English Talbot family: which English Talbot family?
 * There is Baron Talbot, but the relevant ones are the 1st & 2nd Earls of Shrewsbury, both linked when mentioned just after. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since it has just been introduced, though, wouldn't "an" be more appropriate? Otherwise it sounds like the article's namedropping a family we should be expected to know (like "the Medici"). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Redone Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Archibald Russell establishes: maybe "has established"?
 * Changed to "established" Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Joel Upton supports Waagen's: maybe "Joel Upton's analysis supports" or somesuch? Otherwise the present tense seems weird.
 * Rewritten. There is another "analysis" just after. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Provenance

 * it commanded an unusually high price: is the price known?
 * Yes, but it's not much use by itself - I think it was 40 florins. Stapleton publishes and translates the whole thing, which known from a later copy. Maybe could do a note comparing it with other works priced up in the inventory, but this is fiddly. I think we are working from google preview, which gives the introductory essay but not the list itself. in UK anyway. In fact, with a Van Eyck, it was the most expensive of the 42 Netherlandish paintings recorded. See here; the top price was 100 florins for the Fra Angelico tondo now in Washington, but a small Fra Angelico was only valued at 5 florins. Rewritten a bit; the identity of the 1492 work with that in Berlin is not certain. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe best to shove it into a footnote? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * indicating that their interest: is "they" the Medici?
 * Yes, rewritten Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note the similarity: "Note" may fall under Manual of Style/Words to watch
 * I think it's ok in a picture caption, but could go to "showing". Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * northern painter: should "northern" be capitalized here?
 * Usually not I think - like "N/northern Europe". Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * also identified the Saint Eligius panel: the Saint Eligius is also by Christus?
 * Yes, but... Now: "In this way, Waagan also identified Christus' so-called Saint Eligius panel, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (and seen as just a portrait of a goldsmith)" Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * a number of paintings had been attributed to Jan van Eyck: meaning paintings by Christus, or paintings in general?
 * Added "his", though until this date anything from northern Europe before about 1520 was liable to be attributed to Jan van Eyck (after that it was all Durer). Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * hence the confusion with the older painter who often signed his work with similar phraseology if signed with separate names, why would there be confusion?
 * I'll look after this. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Taking this out for the time being. The sources are a bit confusing as to why anyone thought this. Ceoil (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now excised. Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Dating

 * hidden comment: lots of blanks to be filled in here; Sterling assumes familiarity with the literature: are there still lots of blanks to be filled in, or can this comment be removed?
 * Its removed now. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * as executed later: or "to have been"?
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

File check

 * The sources for File:Fouquet Madonna.jpg and File:Master of 1473 Triptych of Jan de Witte.jpg are dead links.
 * File:Petrus Christus Portrait of a Young Woman X-radiograph.jpg: are X-rays of artwork public domain? The source claims Copyright © The Metropolitan Museum of Art
 * Other files are fine: on Commons and appropriately tagged.

Feel free to disagree with anything here, or any of my copyedits. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I never quite understand the issue here re "sources", as on the Fouquet Madonna. This is a museum photo of a famous painting, which has its own category at  Category:Madonna_lactans_by_Jean_Fouquet. This is the best of the many versions we have, sourced from some website, which is now defunct. Anyway, I've now swopped for a brighter version uploaded by the photographer. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Switching to File:Triptyque de Jean Witte (1473).jpg from the museum.(Oh, it's been removed anyway) I think we may have to let the x-ray go, Ceoil. Can we link to it? (was also removed anyway)Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I still think it's odd to have a disambig like (Christus, Berlin) (wouldn't just (Christus) or (Petrus Christus) be better?), but I woudln't hold this up over titling.  It's a fine article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Curley for your close reading and very detailed review :) I'm ok with moving to (Christus). Ceoil (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Check alphabetization of sources
 * One three-author work uses et al in short cites, while the other lists all three - be consistent
 * FN18: author name doesn't match that given in Sources
 * Missing bibliographic info for Sterling
 * Nash is a book and should have its title italicized
 * Upton: check location. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikki; all resolved now. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Victoriaearle comment

 * I'd not ever read this article until tonight - very nice! And interesting to read that it's dated based on the style of the hennin. I've made a few very small tweaks; no prob to revert if not okay. One quibble is this sentence (and I might try to fix myself if I get the time): "The subject no longer sits against a flat, neutral background but is placed in an airy, three-dimensional and realistic setting" >> per the inline I left, sounds like she was sitting against a wall but now isn't. Also, is this Christus portrait the first to use such a convention? In other the words does "The subject" refer specifically to this girl or to Christus' innovations in general?
 * Support. Nicely done, as usual - a gem. Victoria (tk) 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Victoria, and well spotted. I've clarified that sentence now. Ceoil (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles

 * A very good article. A few points.
 * The placing of images seems arbitrary. For example the Melun Diptych is at the beginning of Description although it is not discussed until Provenance. It would be easier for the reader to see the relevance of comparisons with other pictures if they were in the same section. Also why have the Portrait of a Woman, which is not discussed, and not the Arnolfini Portrait, which is?
 * The Melun is there to illustrate by comparison "She reflects the Gothic ideal of elongated facial features, narrow shoulders, tightly pinned hair and an almost unnaturally long forehead, achieved through tightly pulled back hair which has been plucked at the top", which the caption should perhaps clarify. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Caption amended now to reflect this. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again the relevance of the Van de Weyden portrait to the nearby text needs explanation in the text or caption. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Added now in the caption. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "his former master van Eyck" I think it is worth saying in the lead that Christus was a pupil of Van Eyck.
 * I don't know - it would have to go in the first sentence I think, which seems excessive. The relationship lacks documentation, though it is usually accepted. I've left it where it is and softened to "...Jan van Eyck, who is often regarded as Christus' master." Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be cautious also, this seems fine. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The date of Waagen's comments would be helpful.
 * Done (1825) Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I found the discussion of the inscription confusing. It is not clear until the second paragraph that the original was in Latin, and English and German translations are being given. Why not give the original Latin at the start rather than the German?
 * It's not clear that it has actually survived, even as text (the frame itself has disappeared, which I've clarified) - Ainsworth doesn't quote it, which you'd think she would if she had it. What about Upton, Ceoil? Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Will recheck Johnbod and post latest monday night (off to Dingle for long weekend). Book is to hand but exhausted after rubbish week. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I made myself clear. The first paragraph says interpreted lettering as suggesting, which is vague. The second says he may have misinterpreted nepos in the signature (should not this be mistranslated nepos in the inscription?). If I have got it right and the argument is over the translation of a Latin inscription, it would make things clear to say at the start "Waagen translated a Latin inscription as...", even if the wording in Latin is not available, rather than the unclear (to me) interpreting as suggesting. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rewritten somewhat, and expanded in a note. I think both Waagen's transcription and translation have been put into question, inevitably on a speculative basis; then there may be questions as to the date of the inscription in any case. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This looks fine to me now. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Later, Archibald Russell established that Grymeston had not married into the Talbot family" It has not previously been made clear that the identification was based on the assumption that he had married into the Talbots. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was - that was just a guess that would have neatly tidied up the theory, if true. The Talbots came from Waagen's reading of the vanished frame, Grimeston from the apparent match with his portrait, now in the NG on loan. I agree it is confusing. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * These are all good points Dudley that we are working with; many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we have covered all these now, but please say if not. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is just the last point, that Grymeston had not married into the Talbots. I would delete it, but if it is kept I think its relevance needs to be clarified. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, I don't think Ainsworth clearly has Scharf tying Grimston in with the Talbots. Does Upton? Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It was poorly phrased, what was intended was eliminated the posibility. I'll remove this. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. A fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed review, its always gratifying when someone looks so close. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Dating
"In the early 20th century works then attributed to Christus were challenged." - What is being challenged here, the dating or the attribution? I assume the former, but the current sentence structure makes it unclear. Kafka Liz (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Liz, have clarified that now. Ceoil (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As expected, there was very little for a copyeditor to do, and the writing is superb. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Note - Have the issues raised in he image check been resolved? I still see dead links for sources and we need clarification regarding the X-ray image, which alone is not a work of art. Graham Colm (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All done, mostly by removing pics. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fixes and support Dan. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


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