Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beaune Altarpiece/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 04:10, 5 September 2014 [1].


Beaune Altarpiece

[edit]
Nominators: Ceoil, Victoria 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Large polyptych altarpiece painted by Rogier van der Weyden c. 1445–50. The work was comissioned by Nicolas Rolin and his wife Guigone de Salins as the centerpiece for a hospice at Beaune in France, a region then undergoing decimation from bubonic plague. Patients were not expected to survive their stay; the work served a dual function; comforting the dying with its choice of saints Sebastian and Anthony (both of whom were associated with assisting those suffering from plague), while its exterior Last Judgment panels acts as moralising reminders of the pitfals of sin.

Rolin undertook the commission well aware of his age and mortality, and "having put aside human cares [and] thinking of my own salvation..." set aside large parts of his fortune to care for the dying. Afer his death, de Salins carried on the project, and is buried before the alterpiece's origional position in the church. Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Johnbod The usual good stuff, but...
  • You should probably work in how common a Doom (painting) was in fresco (now mostly lost), from before 1000, typically on the west wall of churches, so you saw it on your way out, which in a larger sense was what it was also there for at the hospital.

More later, Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get the point re positioning, but might need help from you sourcing it, esp considering you wrote the artice on Doom paintings. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can do that, over the w/e. Not sure about the last part though, but it will be somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JB - interesting addition. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I might do more later. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
have found a source on this, will be able to add tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is not known why he decided to build in eastern France rather than in the Low Countries, although it is likely that it was in a gesture intended to heal wounds between the Burgundians and the French" - this doesn't seem a mystery to me. Rolin was not a Netherlander at all, but came from Autun, 50 kilometres from Beaune, which is in the middle of Burgundy proper - surely Burgundian territory at the time? And just down the road from Champmol outside Dijon (actual capital of Burgundy), where the dukes were buried. I don't see how the French came into it. Also his mother remarried a Beaune man, & may have been buried there. Jan van Eyck's Madonna of Chancellor Rolin likewise was given to a church he rebuilt in Autun and shows a hilly local landscape. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sort of slapped that in from a previous version during my lunch break today and meant to come back this evening to work on it. I think it's important to mention where Beaune is, as Cas says. We did at one point have a piece explaining about Autun, which I snipped out, but tried to find earlier and am about to search again now. In my mind, the issue is how much information to give for the lay reader who hasn't a clue who Philip of Rolin or any of these people were, and what to us seems too much or plain wrong. Anyway, thanks for mentioning it. Victoria (tk) 23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've trimmed this down a bit again - there's a lot about the hospice in the sources which I think should go to that article. Victoria (tk) 23:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now "It is not known why he decided to build in eastern France rather than in his birth-place of Autun; although Philip kept a residence in Beaune, the Burgundians assembled there,...." plus a point about Beune lacking a hospital. But while Beaune was in "eastern France" in the sense of the Kingdom of France, it was Burgundian territory at the time - in fact geographically almost dead centre of the core Duchy of Burgundy (map, handily as at just the right date). What is the force of the "although"? - not clear. If the political machinations of 50 years before were a factor in the choice of locatuion, it needs more explaining. Sources permitting, one might mention he chose a place at a shortish respectful difference from the planned burial-place of his old master (d. 5 years later, in 1467) in Champmol/Dijon, and at his mother's last home (don't know anything about her later life - had she needed a hospital perhaps?). Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, that was poorly done. I've tried again. According to Richard Vaughan's biography of Philip the Good, the conditions in Beaune really were dreadful in the last years of the 1430s and early 1440s, which Blum emphasizes as well (I've attributed to her for now). I've rejigged, put back pieces I'd previously trimmed, and tried to clarify more. I will re-read to see if any of the sources mention the other points you bring up - respectful place from Dijon and mother. But it does seem that impetus was the ravages by the écorcheurs followed by an outbreak of the plague. I'll come back to it later: trying to decide how much to add re the hatred between France and Burgundy - very big can of worms! Anyway, hope this helps for now. Victoria (tk) 15:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be picky but "Beaune's proximity to the ducal holding in the Low Countries made it politically important" also seems odd. Philip's only "principal" residence in Burgundy proper (out of 5 Vaughan lists, p.136) was at Dijon (still there, see Palace of the Dukes of Burgundy), which is closer to the northern territories than Beaune. He can't have spent much time at any house in Beaune. One of the big problems, and political constraints, for the Burgundian dukes was getting themselves and others between their northern and southern territories, across potentially hostile territories ruled by others. It was a long way, and must have been over a week's journey even for a party travelling light - no doubt Vaughan has figures somewhere. In fact Philip spent most of his time in the north, where most of the money, military and art were. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've tried again. Victoria (tk) 18:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heaven is represented by a gate leading to a cathedral" - do we know this? Whose cathedral could it be? Surely it is the Heavenly City" - suggest "Heaven is represented by an entrance to the Heavenly City, which is in a contemporary Gothic style." The architecture doesn't seem specifically ecclesistical, with no statues of saints or angels, as many similar heavenly structures in EN paintings have. Gothic palaces, almost all now vanished, look just the same. What do the sources say? Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all points addressed; thanks for the quick response. Nice piece, one of a fine series. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Weyden-beaune-achterkant.jpg: source link not working. Same with /File:Weyden-JudiciFinal-closeddreta.jpg
  • File:Patients_of_the_Hotel-Dieu.jpg needs US PD tag, as does File:Beaune_Altarpiece_detail.jpg
  • File:Autun_St_Lazare_Tympanon.jpg: since there is no freedom of panorama in France, we need to account for the licensing status of the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki! I've fixed the source links and the tags. Re File:Autun_St_Lazare_Tympanon.jpg - I understand the no freedom of panaroma but don't understand the bit about licensing the status of original work, which is 800 years old. Is this an image we can claim a FUR for? It would be nice to keep it. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we can keep it, we just need to throw in a PD template indicating that the original work is now in the public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the file a bit, but don't know which PD template to use for this, so leaving it to Ceoil to figure out (or maybe Johnbod can point me in the right direction. Victoria (tk) 19:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. I never understand these and Commons is completely useless at helping you find the right one. Johnbod (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I've done some copyediting but most of it was gilding the, ah, er, lily. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wehwalt, for the support, and for taking the time to read through and make the edits. Very nice changes. Victoria (tk) 21:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good - only little things I'd do are use som descriptors to locate Beaune (French city, city in eastern France, whatever) and descriptors for Blum and Panofsky. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Cas! I've retrieved a previously snipped bit (strangely, yesterday was thinking I'd been a little aggressive with the pruning shears) to explain a bit more about Beaune. Re the art historians, generally we let them stand on their own merits, but Ceoil should decide on that point. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't suppose all my hole picking and whining counts for much unless I support this after you've fixed it all up. (If there's some hidden rule for FAC supporters that says they must have been here for a year or have 20 billion edits or be able to jump over a cow without a run-up then I guess you can disqualify this support; I'm going to go out and try jumping over a cow in a minute, so if that is the rule, you might want to hold off striking my support until I report back). Belle (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do it. Belle (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do what? Jump over a cow? Thanks for the support and your sharp eyes. Here are your comments, for the delegates to see that you really made us work hard! I think you have enough respect and skill as a reviewer to be entering the fray at FAC and this is a place where your skills are needed. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just clarify that I did mean that I couldn't jump over a cow (to be honest it looked quite angry, so I didn't even try). I think that's more important for the delegates (sounds like it's some secret society; don't disappoint me by revealing the truth, I'm imagining golden sickles, chanting and flowing robes) to know than anything about how I went through the article and annoyed everybody with nit-picking. I'm scared to even try jumping over a cow. There, I said it. Shun me if you want, I don't care any more. Belle (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
your picking and whining on talk was most appreciated. Carry on. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SV, for reading and for the support. Victoria (tk) 23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and for helping with the image placements. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am embarrassed to say that I was in the Hospices de Beaune last month but have no recollection of seeing this altarpiece. Had I read this fine article beforehand I should have made certain to seek it out. The text is evidently comprehensive, and is clear, well balanced and fully and widely referenced; the images are magnificent. Manifestly of FA standard in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim! Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From me too! Victoria (tk) 15:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Sources/citations

  • This has been waiting a while for a source review so I've had a quick look myself:
    • Harbison isn't cited, so could be under Further reading but not Sources
    • Is "The Patron and the Pirate" 1991 or 1981?
  • There are a couple of paragraphs that I'd expect to end with citations:
    • Third para, Inner panels
    • First para, Sources and influences

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thanks Ian, and good catches. I've removed Harbison (that bit seems to have been binned), fixed Lane, fixed 3rd para in Inner panels. Let's give it a few days for Ceoil to surface - I think he had more to add to the "Sources and influences". Btw - there are a couple of duplicate links but they're intentional. Victoria (tk) 14:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Beaune_Altarpiece/archive1&oldid=1138455770"