Talk:Crucifixion Diptych (van der Weyden)

Crucifixion Diptych (van der Weyden) was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 11, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Philadelphia Museum of Art High‑importance

	This article is related to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Please copy quality assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed, and assign importance in accordance with the project's guidelines.Philadelphia Museum of ArtWikipedia:GLAM/Philadelphia Museum of ArtTemplate:WikiProject Philadelphia Museum of ArtPhiladelphia Museum of Art-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Title

Hi. I'd suggest renaming the article; Crucifixion Diptych is generic and we do not if was origionaly a diptych or triptych. I'm not decided as I dont have any books covering it but see the FMOA's (surprisingly badly written) article uses the title The Crucifixion, with the Virgin and Saint John the Evangelist Mourning. Nice work though, delighted to see the page, though there is duplicity of info in having two infoboxes. Any chance of no infoboxes (he asks in hope ;). Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. They've polished the article beautifully. And thank you for the compliment.

I tried to get it down to one infobox, but was defeated by the panels being slightly different widths (the dimensions conversion). I also lost resolution when I tried to pair the images on my computer.

I changed the name to Crucifixion Diptych (Rogier van der Weyden). I agree with your points above, but found some Websites that use "Crucifixion Diptych." De Vos seems to be the only one who uses "Calvary Diptych." BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it down to one multi-image infobox. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I see you are toying with the infobox format, but I think you should loose it alogether, go with a simpler double image, and move any facts from it to the lead. I had a similar struggle with a Dürer diptych and in the end went with the least fussy and bare option. Bty do you have the de Vos source or the full Mark Tucker JSTOR article? There is huge potential for a great article here, the work is so striking and suggestive. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the infobox, but you're welcome to play with/eliminate it.

De Vos's date comes from his 2000 Rogier van der Weyden: The Complete Works. I don't have the full Mark Tucker article. (He's the head of conservation at PMA.) I do have a 1972 catalogue of the Johnson Collection which gives a provenance going back to 1865, and a list of references going back to 1908. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you come across any speculation as to what the missing right wing might have contained? Ceoil (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1972 Johnson Collection catalogue argues against it, but traditionally it would have been Mary Magdalen. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got rid of the infobox. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw, good solution. Have you thought of a DYK nom; the article is strong, very well sourced, would be a nice addition. I have another van der weyden nomed, two in a week would be a great thing. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you're doing. I'll look into DYK in the morning. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry too much about it; its a small thing. I was guessing it might encourage work, but then saw the work on the page since I last visited. Ceoil (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here - I've sent a source for this painting to Ceoil; send on pls. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]