Wikipedia:Peer review/Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents/archive1

Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents
This peer review discussion has been closed. The article is short, but Ive kind of exhausted the sources. A moving and unflinching c 1490 diptych by Albrecht Dürer. Ceoil (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD
 * I don't understand the point about waiting a year or two until she looked older.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The diptych seems to be a study of the effect of aging on the human face, and it seems he was trying to evoke pity for two people who had had very difficult lives. So I suspect Dürer was waiting until his mother's woes weighed more heavily on her face. I'll try and explain this better on the page. Ceoil (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Barbara's -> Holper's.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Description
 * "In contrast to Albrecht's panel" -> "In contrast to the Elder's panel" or "In contrast to the the father's panel" --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Barbara Holper
 * Use a blockquote for the long quote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm inclinded against blockquote, just a preferance. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Lost diptych
 * You don't need to fully name and link Fedja Anzelewsky again. Last name is sufficient here. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Imhoff inventory? Who is Imhoff?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, no source actually says who that is, but this is a good catch. I need to dig more into this. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * General
 * Is there any critical commentary on this diptych?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is; I'm waiting on a substantial book that might add some bit more on this. Thanks for the comments, working through. 16:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments by Wehwalt
 * Lede
 * " on human physiognomy" consider omitting. We all know what aging is.
 * Description
 * The lede says he was 19. Here you are suggesting he is 18.
 * The passage about the father's birthplace might well be consigned to a footnote.
 * "its meaning and significance is lost.' are lost. But is it really worth going with both words?
 * "portrait of an emaciated woman" suggest "gaunt woman" due to emaciated in a quote coming up.
 * "as is the pose given by her son " I'd toss "she is" before "given"
 * Sources
 * "influenced by a van Eyck's 1438 (probable) " there's obviously an issue here but I'm not confident enough to clean it up
 * You may be asked at some stage to provide sources for some of the footnoted material.

That's really all I have. Very accessible and well-written.Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these Wehwalt. Responding. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)