Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stefan Lochner/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2015.

Stefan Lochner

 * Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Stephan Lochner (c. 1410 – 1451) was one of the most significant German old master painters before Albrecht Dürer. Few records survive, but art and social historians estimate that he was was highly successful during his lifetime, but over extended his borrowings and property debts in his 30s, and died of plague in his early 40s. He disappears from record at the end of 1451, during a winter and spread of illness that killed 40% of those living around him, including both his parents, in a period when graveyard space was at a premium. Lochner left behind a series of sophisticated multi-panel oil paintings and polyptychs widely copied and much imitated, and was involved in the production or design of at least three exant illuminated manuscripts.

A rewarding peer review is here, and as usual  Victoria has been very helpful in guidance, copyediting and suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a really interesting subject. Happy to have a look through, but (beyond a smattering of reading around the philosophy of art, which is unlikely to help...) I've no real knowledge of the fine art, so please be ready to take my comments with a pinch of salt.
 * Comments from JM
 * Concerning the lead, "virtuoso surface textures", and possibly "realism" and "iconography", are terms that may be unfamiliar to some readers.
 * Those phrases are now linked. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "(c. 1410 – 1451)" versus "He was probably born around 1400 in Meersburg"- is 1410 "around" 1400? It jars with me slightly.
 * Linked. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "in today's Holland" I don't mean to patronise, but you do mean Holland, and not the Netherlands, do you?
 * Linked to Early Netherlandish Painting. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "over extended" Does this need a dash? I'm not sure.
 * Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "His influence of successive generations on northern artists" Are your "of" and "on" the wrong way around?
 * Rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Firstly, in" Why not "first"?
 * Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Unfortunately Dürer" A little non-neutral?
 * It was most unfortunate, but point taken and reworded. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "enthusiastic – at length – [10] emphasising" Surely the foonote should be within the dashes, in the same way it would be within brackets? Also, are you sure that's the correct spacing for your dashes? See WP:DASH. In the same sentence, check for MOS:LQ compliance, and are you committed to the tense shift? It's a little jarring.
 * Fixed all this by trimming out the dashes. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Who is Michael Wolfson? Something "the art historian" (or, if we have an article, a wikilink)
 * Oh, please don't start that. Those bothered will find "Wolfson, Michael. "Hat Dürer das 'Dombild' gesehen?". Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, Volume 49, 1986" in thwe references. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The author wouldn't be starting anything- Wolfson is the exception in this article as the person who is not introduced beyond his name. It's not clear to readers whether he's an artist, a historian, a critic... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In articles about 500 year-old painters people can assume experts mentioned are art historians & only those who are not need a descriptive tag. We have been though this before at FA. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Ceoil, do you definitely mean 1996? Your only reference to Wolfson is a decade earlier, though I concede that this is not what you are citing for this claim. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You're a bit back-and-forth about how certain we are of the year of his death; the lead switches from "1451" to "plague hit around 1451, [and we] assume", then there's a "year of his death" in the attribution section. In the discussion of his political career, you have "but died in office".
 * He died in the winter of 1450-51, prob jan of 51. I think this is clearer now? Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "its artists concentrated on more personal, intimate and homely forms" I'm not sure I know what this means. Paintings of mothers reading to children in front of roaring fires?
 * Haha, droll. Rephrased now. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "still under the influence of the International courtly style" Is International a proper noun? If so, I'm not sure I know what it means
 * Not here, but International Gothic is a proper noun. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Lochner's first appearance in extant records in 1442; nine years before he died." Grammar
 * Rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "the local painters guild" Do you need an apostrophe here?
 * You do, and added. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The first couple of lines of the second paragraph of "style" are difficult for a Philistine like me. Some wikilinks might help.
 * Linked art material and terms. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What does "especially in his tooling of gold grounds" mean?
 * This was rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The "soft style" thing mentioned in the opening sentence of the lead is neither explained nor mentioned in the "style" section- is this an oversight?
 * Mentioned below now. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Lochner's major works include three large polyptychs, the broken apart Last Judgement and Altarpiece of the City Patron Saints, Nuremberg's Crucifixion and the Martyrdom of the Apostles." I'm struggling with this. Are you listing the polyptychs, here? Which of those named are the three? Are both LJ and AotCPS broken up?
 * "There are two surviving wings from an altarpiece with images of saints in the London's National Gallery and the Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne." Reference?
 * Cited now to the NG. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "1450s "Prayer book of Stephan Lochner" now" Shouldn't that be italicised? Same with Anholt.
 * Um, not sure, I've gone with "non italics", as these are collections rather than individual images, or something. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Manuscripts are objects, not works, and have names not titles, and are not italicised. See WP:VAMOS. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There's an inconsistency between "c 1500" and "c. 1500". I don't know which is right, but consistency would be good.
 * made consistent - "c." and no spaces between the years. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the last sentence of the first paragraph of "influences", but I still think it could do with a little smoothing
 * Rephrased this. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "He seems to have borrowed a number of motifs and compositional elements; most especially the Ursula and the central Dombild panels quote passages from van Eyck's "Soldiers of Christ"." You lose me after the semi-colon
 * Text after the semi-colon has been cut. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (Does "quote" mean something in the history of art beyond its usual meaning?)
 * Rephrased this. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I know the "rule" against starting sentences with prepositions isn't as clear as some claim, but is starting a paragraph (in "Influences") with "yet" ideal?
 * Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Albrecht Dürer knew of him before his stay in Cologne. van der Weyden saw his paintings during his travel to Italy" Is the capitalisation correct here?
 * Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "physiognomy" is not a term familiar to most.
 * Linked. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling with your "New Findings Concerning ... in Cologne Cathedral" source. What is that? A pamphlet?
 * Clarified the description now. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Many of your journal sources lack page numbers. I'm not familiar with your citation style, so I don't know if they should be included, but at least one has them.
 * These are given page nrs in the specific inlines. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

(Consider, also, that you refer in your footnotes to "Wellesz", while the bibliography entry would normally be "Wellesz and Rothenstein".) On a similar note, could you perhaps include the editor and publishing location (and, for consistency's sake, ISBN) for the Faries source?
 * Perhaps consider spelling out the particular chapter in the Wellesz/Rothenstein edited collection? Again, I don't know your citation style, but citing the particular chapter in an edited collection is standard in all the citation styles I've come across before.
 * I clarified this - book is entirely written by Wellesz; Rothenstein is the series editor. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps shift the Commons link to the external links section.
 * Ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Category:15th-century deaths from plague (disease)?
 * Added this. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Really interesting article. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was checking you edits as you went. These points are all salient and highly informed. Thanks so much! Ceoil (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update:All addresses, except am digging re Wellesz/Rothenstein, and I think soft style, ie int gothic was covered, though if you didnt follow then I'm not being clear. Re journals, the specific inlines have the pg nrs. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Cautious support (cautious because I'm not as confident with the subject matter as I could be). I made some more edits (please double-check), and as a last few comments:
 * "As secular works grew in demand and religious works became unfashionable in later centuries, 15th-century polyptychs were often broken up and sold as individual works, especially if a panel or section contained an image that could pass as a secular portrait." Reference?
 * "The Crucifixion is also an early work and reminiscent of late medieval painting. It has a heavily ornamented gilded background and the smooth flowing quality of the 'soft' Gothic style." Reference?
 * "acanthus scrolls" Is a term that is surely too unfamiliar to go unlinked/unexplained.
 * You twice mention Chapius in the text, but never introduce him

A really enjoyable read. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The final points now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * PD-Art defaults to a life+70 tag - use life+100 instead
 * File:Rogier_van_der_Weyden_-_The_Altar_of_St._John.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Stefan_Lochner_Triptych_with_the_Virgin_in_the_Garden_of_Paradise,_c._1445_–_1450.jpg needs a US D tag
 * I went through the Stefan Lochner cat on commons and added the US and +100 tags. Have Dropped Altar_of_St._John, wasn't really necessary to include. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments from Johnbod
 * "... was a German painter working in the late "soft style" (schöne stil) of the International Gothic..." Note that (from International Gothic) "the style is sometimes known in German as the "Schöne Stil" or "Weicher Stil" ("Beautiful style" or "Soft style").[10]". "schöne" = beautiful, not soft.
 * Ok, removed the German. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "which often feature fanciful and black winged angels." - aren't their wings actually dark blue?
 * Yes, mentioned now. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Should a plague in 1450 be linked to the Black Death of a century earlier? The Second plague pandemic is more appropriate.
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "...echoes of his panels can be seen in works by Rogier van der Weyden." Is this referenced? one might have thought any influence would have been the other way, as indeed is said and referenced later on.
 * The sources seem contradictory. I would think Rogier influenced Lochner, but digging. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've tried to explain better about the Dombild/Altarpiece of the City's Patron Saints, which was not well done. More might be needed, and you might explain somewhere that "Dombild" = "Cathedral picture". - well, I've stuck that in, unreferenced, as it is basic German. The work is then called by various names in the rest of the article. It might also be said that the main subject is the Adoration of the Magi, and I think it is sometimes referred to by this.
 * Sure. I switched the article to using Dombild as title, which is less confusing for a casual reader of a bio, espically given the notname. The title Adoration of the Magi is mentioned in the lead caption cited to Weiss. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "a name inscribed on the sheath of a figure on the right" - Huh, "sheath"? Means Scabbard?
 * "Later, Johann Dominicus Fiorillo discovered a 15th-century record that read "in 1380 there was an excellent painter in Cologne called Wilhelm, who had no equal in his art and who depicted human beings as if they were alive". " How does this fit in? Red herring?
 * Its In 1380 there was an excellent painter in Cologne called Wilhelm, who had no equal in his art and who depicted human beings as if they were alive. Ceoil (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "He was probably born in the early 15th century in Meersburg" but the detailed section seems pretty dubious about this. Soften? But then later: "On 16 August 1451 the council of Meersburg was informed by officials in Cologne that Lochner would be unable to attend to the will and estate of his parents." which seems more solid.
 * Have added a section on the hist records, but the page, yes, dioes need to firm up on what is know and what is supposed. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "He moved to Cologne" - unclear if he came for the Imperial decorations, or was already well established there. Both seem to be said.
 * We obviously not know but will add clarifiers. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "forty marks and ten shillings" - links?
 * marks linked, no appropriate article for 15th c shillings that I can find. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "possibly to avoid paying the 12 guilder fee; unbeknown to him the guild did not require it." Confusing, and how do we know he was unaware? seems unlikely frankly. "However, he was obliged to act as Ratsherr, and on 24 June 1447 he became a burgher of Cologne" - why "However"?
 * Hedged this. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "He painted with oil and typically placed the canvas below the ground or support" Normally, the canvas is the "support", with the ground on top, then the paint. Did he in fact paint on canvas? This would have been most unusual at this date, and worth mentioning if so.  All the image files that specify a support (not many) say panel.  Ok, I see from Billinge that putting canvas over the panel was done in Cologne, or Germany. Worth clarifying, and using this very clear account more. The canvas is above the panel, which for my money should be regarded as the "support".
 * I need help with this. I did try and figure out, but was unable. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll get on it. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tinkered a bit. Is that ok? Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, explained much clearer now. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "In the underdrawings for the Last Judgment..." - explain how we know this? X-rays etc
 * Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The description of the technique could be clearer. Billinge et al might help.
 * It think you mean because it was a bit wordy not because it lacked detail - I tried to simplify, can you look again. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a mix of ENGVARS - center, colour, modeled, etc.
 * Umm. Removed these instances, but spelling is not my forte. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Lochner's major works include three large polyptychs,..." 4 with the Dombild, surely? I don't know about all these redlinks.
 * Now reading as four. Redlinks have been reduced. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "As secular works grew in demand and religious works were seen as constricted and out of step in later centuries.." doesn't seem the best choice of words somehow
 * Reworded this. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Two drawings on paper in the British Museum and the Beaux-Arts ..." - 2nd link wrong, I'm sure
 * Ouch. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Hans Memling was exposed to his work during a visit to Italy. The influence of Lochner's Last Judgement can be seen in the latter's Gdansk altarpiece, where the gates of Heaven are similar, as is the rendering of the blessed." Dubious (mainly the first bit). Memling seems never to have visited Italy, and would he have seen any Lochners if he had? Do you mean Cologne, where he may have trained? Again "Van der Weyden saw his paintings during his travel to Italy." - his trip, in 1450, is somewhat speculative, and were there any Lochners in Italy? Do we mean his travel took him via Cologne, which is very possible?
 * Most likely. Removed for now, will dig out hopefully later tonight. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Later, Johann Dominicus Fiorillo discovered..." Are you sure it was later (than 1816, when Fiorillo was already 68). I only ask; presumably it was in his second blockbuster, published 1815 to 1820, but no doubt covering many more years of research.
 * (Per: Levey, Michael, The German School; National Gallery Catalogues, p. 60, 1959, National Gallery, London) the Dombild was commissioned for the chapel of the Rathaus (Cologne City Hall) and only reached the Dom later (presumably before the Allies flattened the Rathaus in WW2). Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * More later. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, working through....Ceoil (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Significant points sorted Johnbod (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Last point I haven't got her book, but Iris Schaeffer's video (2015, the article's EL) suggests that the new examination of the underdrawings of the Dombild, suggests that SL worked as a student/junior with the Master of the Heisterbach Altarpiece, whose works are I think now re-dated to the 1430s. Shouldn't this be mentioned - c. 30 mins in. Johnbod (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and lecture is based on the findings Eng trans here. Thanks very much for the additions and edits; will revisit the sources re workshop. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Had mentioned Research in 2014 into the underdrawings of the "Dombild Altarpiece" established two guiding hands, presumably Lochner and an exceptionally talented pupil from Schaeffer but not made the connection with the Heisterbach. Need to revisit and make explicit. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments by Wehwalt
 * Leaning support. Just a few things:
 * Lede
 * " combine that era's tendency towards long flowing lines and brilliant colours while incorporating". I think there's an issue here with "combine", I keep waiting for a "with".
 * " illuminated manuscript" Why the singular?
 * "Lochner's identity and reputation was lost" was should be "were", surely?
 * " He was probably born " this feels like the start of a new paragraph.
 * Identity
 * The third sentence of the first paragraph could usefully be split.
 * "under whom he had studied" You could probably drop the "had"
 * Cologne
 * "artists concentrated on more personal and intimate and sunkects and forms" I don't speak Art, but it strikes me that this could use clarification.
 * "and he was forced remortgage the homes" a missing "to" after "forced"?
 * "possibly to avoid paying the 12 guilder fee; unbeknown to him the guild did not require it" given that we're not certain of his motivation, can we really say what is known or unknown to him?
 * Plague
 * You may wish to mention, either inline or in a footnote, that January 1451 was after December 1451 and why.
 * Style
 * "The grounded these passages in lead white" should "The" be "He"?
 * Other formats
 * "draftsman" earlier "draughtsman"
 * Influences
 * "new developed" "newly developed"?Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Wehwalt, thanks for the feedback, have most of these now; looking into January 1451. Ceoil (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain re Jan 1451 - is it an error in the article - I dont see from 1451 that the calandars changed. Ceoil (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see it implied that January 1451 followed December 1451 and assume the date changed in March.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just waiting on this last one, --Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Wehwalt, slow on the uptake but I'm just not seeing it. My understanding of the outline is re-election late 1450, plage in 1451, sick in August of 51, city appropriates property nears his in September, creditors act in Dec, taking full control of the estate in Jan 1452. Would be the first time I've typ-oed something like this so....asking. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you fixed it somewhere along the line. Support well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto
I had the pleasure of reading this today and fixed a few odds and sods where I saw fit. I offer these comments in good faith and will not be offended if you decide not to adopt:
 * Identity and attribution
 * "The determination of his identity took place in two stages. First, in an article published in 1823, J. F. Böhmer identified the Dombild (meaning "Cathedral picture") or Altarpiece of the City's Patron Saints with a work mentioned in an account of a visit to Cologne in 1520 in the diary of Albrecht Dürer, during which the notoriously thrifty artist paid 5 silver pfennig to see an altarpiece by "Maister Steffan", some seventy years after Lochner's death." -- Two things here: Would a semi-colon work better by coming before "First, an article published in 1823"? Secondly, there is no "second", which one would expect after your "first". Some, and in that I include me, may also opine that this entire sentence is a bit long for comfortable reading.
 * "The German philosopher and critic Friedrich Schlegel..." – I am a huge fan of the definite article, such as you have here, although elsewhere in the article you use the preferred American format of omitting "the".


 * Early life
 * "Georg and Alhet Lochner were citizens and recorded as having died there in 1451." → "Georg and Alhet Lochner were citizens and were recorded as having died there in 1451."
 * "However, there is no archival evidence that he was there, and his style bears no trace of the art of that region." → "However, there is no archival evidence that he was there, and his style bears no trace of the art of that region." -- in that region, surely?


 * Move to Cologne, success
 * "Cologne had a long tradition of producing high quality visual art, and in the 14th century its output was considered equal to that of Vienna and Prague." -- I think I saw above say that such claims don't necessarily need to be attributed, and that it can be relied on that before a certain date, one can take such claims to belong to art scholars.  Is this correct, or have I got this wrong?  Just checking, as normally I would like these claims attributed, but if you chaps have a certain way of doing things, I shan't stand in the way of consistency.   Cassianto Talk   19:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good suggestions, and agree re the definite article. Now implemented, and thanks for the c/e's this week. Ceoil (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome.  Cassianto Talk   19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not exactly: I said that when statements or views are attributed to individuals, they only need a describing epithet if they are not art historians, as that is the default type of expert in an article like this. The statement you quoted, at the least the first bit, is certainly true, and any book covering the art of the period will say so, so attributing it to a single scholar as though it was somehow controversial or a personal view is not really appropriate. As to the second bit, Vienna was at this point a much more minor centre, but Prague was the Imperial capital and very important in the late 14th century, so that bit is more capable of dispute. But that bit refers to contemporary 14th-century opinion, so is more of a factual matter. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake, thanks for that.  Cassianto Talk   19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "By the 1430s, painting in Cologne had become conventional and somewhat old fashioned, still under the influence of the courtly style of the Master of Saint Veronica, who is known to have been active until 1420." -- Again, and one can refer to my comment above for this, the fact that this was "known" by someone may require you to say who knew this. Also, "which was" could be inserted between "old fashioned" and "still under" if you are talking about Cologne, which I think you are.
 * How about 'conventional and somewhat old fashioned, and still under the influence of the courtly style'. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that conjunction works just as well, if not better, I'm embarrassed to admit!  Cassianto Talk   19:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again this is presumably a factual matter relating to surviving documents (or paintings with dates on them), so doesn't need tying to individuals here. If only we had an article on him, all would no doubt be made clear ....Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed.  Cassianto Talk   19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We link marks but not shillings. I would say that both would require a link for our foreign readers.
 * See above re shillings. Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seen, thanks.  Cassianto Talk   20:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Plague, early death
 * "Germany suffered an outbreak of plague in 1451..." – I'm sure Germany the country didn't suffer all that much; I would say: "There was an outbreak of the plaque in Germany in 1951..." or thereabouts.
 * Have used your wording. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * " It is presumed..." -- by who?
 * Art historians! Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Style
 * "Yet he was widely regarded..." -- A rather uncomfortable sentence starter.
 * Yes, but the yet is needed given the preceding statement - help needed! Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with it, but it is too closely linked to the first sentence for a full stop to be used. One would expect to see a semi-colon used, or maybe, and perhaps more preferably, a comma.   Cassianto Talk   20:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's a better formulation. Done, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Lochner was renowned for his rendering of flesh tones. He grounded these passages in lead white, to achieve a porcelain appearance Probably... -- Either we are missing a full stop, or we have a pesky caps typo.
 * Gaa. Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Lochner seems to have prepared on paper before approaching his underdrawings; there is relatively little evidence of reworking..." – I think the sentence would work just as well, if not better, by omitting "relatively" here.
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The rest of the article appears to be in great working order and I can offer nothing further. Good work!  Cassianto Talk   19:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a touch of déjà vu. In the second paragraph we have: "He was innovative in his rendering of flesh tones, which he built up using lead whites to give pale complexions with almost porcelain qualities." Meanwhile, five paragraphs down, we have: "Lochner was renowned for his rendering of flesh tones. He grounded these passages in lead white, to achieve a porcelain appearance."
 * Got it, phew, good spot. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cassianto, I think these are all addressed, if you could check. I have a few o/s issues from Johnbod that I am working on. Ceoil (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – all checked with responses satisfactorily addressed by the nominator. I now fully endorse this article's promotion to FA.   Cassianto Talk   13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Source review from Cas Liber - ref formatting all looks consistent. isbns all 13 digit with hyphens etc. all in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.