Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nativity (Christus)/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) 18:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nativity (Christus)

Nominator(s): Victoria (tk) 14:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about 15th century Early Netherlandish painter Petrus Christus's painting the Nativity, which would I worked up to make Christmas scheduling easy of Bencherlite. It's had a peer review, and thanks to SlimVirgin, Johnbod and Belle for the helpful comments there. Also thanks to Ceoil and Kafka Liz for the copyedits. Victoria (tk) 14:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I read this through at peer review. It's beautifully written and a pleasure to read, it looks wonderful, and it seems comprehensive and well-sourced. It will make an excellent TFA for Christmas. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to agree. The usual high standards here. Support. Ceoil (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the supports SV & Ceoil, and the nice comments. Victoria (tk) 11:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Petrus_Christus_Nativity_(c._1460s)_detail.jpg, File:Petrus_Christus_Nativity_detail.jpg: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the catch! Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 11:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am slightly confused over a couple of aspects:

Dates: The article begins: "The Nativity is an oil-on-wood panel painting by the Early Netherlandish painter Petrus Christus, completed sometime between the mid-1440s to mid-1450s" But the caption to the lead image reads: "Nativity, c. 1460s." Why the date discrepancy?
In the "Dating and condition" section there are two images. It is not clear what the one on the left is. It is captioned "Nativity, Petrus Christus, c. 1450", and the lower foreground features are similiar to those of the main image, but the upper foreground and background details are quite different. Is this an early draft, is it the underdrawing? Whatever it is, the relationship of this image to the completed panel needs to be clear in both text and caption.
The right-hand image caption doesn't tell us specifically what the image is. I assumed it was a detail taken from the panel before restoration and cleaning, since the colours are muted. However, if this is pre-restoration, why are the halo and the gold paten not shown? Again, I think further clarity in text and caption is needed if readers are not to become confused.

Hi Brian, it is slightly confusing. I've changed the date in the lead image; thanks for that catch.
The 1450 Nativity is a different painting. For the life of me I cannot find much more than what's there now in the sources, but will dig a bit more during the week.
File:Petrus Christus Nativity detail.jpg is a crop and not a very good one because it's a screenprint from here. I might try to play with it a little more to try to improve, but the many iterations on the file give a sense of how often I've switched it around. That thing the infant is lying on is the paten; the halo is very faint (the gold rays around Mary's head).
Hi Brian, I think you've brought up a good point about the two different versions. I've uploaded a new pic, hopefully less dull and fuzzy, and clarified somewhat in the text. There's still an article that's apparently gone missing about the various versions that I've tried to find with no success but will continue to search for. In the meantime, I'm hoping the clarification is helpful. Victoria (tk) 19:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a different issue entirely, "Richter (1941)" does not seem to be defined in the sources list. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch. I've added it. Victoria (tk) 22:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, do you have anything further to add? Also, do I take it Richter was the only sourcing issue you found? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Adam Cuerden

Lead image has been nominated for feature picture status.
Most of the detailed images of the main artwork, including but not limited to File:Petrus_Christus_Nativity_(c._1460s)_detail.jpg File:Petrus Christus Nativity detail.jpg and File:Petrus christus, natività di washington 04.jpg seem to have been taken from slightly inferior sources. It might be a good idea to recrop from the high-quality lead image, but I don't think this is a blocker.
Everything else passes without comment.

Support, but it'd be nice to get some better details. If you need help with that, poke me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- All the gallery images are from Web Gallery of Art, including File:Petrus christus, natività di washington 04.jpg.
- File:Petrus Christus Nativity detail.jpg is a screen print of the painting before restoration, from a book published by the Met for the 1994 exhibition. Not sure where we can find a better source of the pre-restoration condition. G-books doesn't allow screen capture.
- File:Petrus_Christus_Nativity_(c._1460s)_detail.jpg is a screenprint from the same book (pages noted on the source in the file). I can't zoom in far enough on our current lead image to get that much detail - again this is a photograph taken by the Met curators/conservators. I like the image too because it shows the Craquelure. If we others agree it's substandard, I'll see what I can do.
- Do you mean better details in the text or in the images? Sorry, not quite following that comment. Thanks, btw for the image review and the support. Victoria (tk) 00:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding re POTD: I got pinged from Crisco's page on the conversation re Christmas scheduling. I'm not fussed when this runs - if you guys want the image to run on Christmas, then the article probably shouldn't. I've clarified above that I've not written this because I want to see an article I've written on the Main page on Christmas, but to make the scheduling easy. I'll drop a note on Bencherlite's page too, and let you all work out which (the article or the pic) will run. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 00:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - We might well go Christmas truce for POTD this year, and this as TFA, then the image next year or so. That's why I like nominating images from FAs for POTD - a second day on the main page for high-quality content is always nice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - More on-topic, though - I'd suggest explicitly saying the detail images are pre-restoration. That's a valuable second view of the work as it was, but it's not clear that's what's happening at present. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - - All the details are post-restoration. File:Petrus Christus Nativity (c. 1460s) detail.jpg is the frontispiece of a book published in 1994 for a 1994 Christus exhibition at the Met; the painting underwent restoration before the exhibition and there's no way of knowing whether that image was taken before or after the restoration. We do know that File:Petrus Christus Nativity detail.jpg is pre-restoration because it shows the details removed in the restoration. I've found another version of that which might be clearer and will upload in the next day or so. Victoria (tk) 14:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Sounds good. And sorry to be difficult. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I needed to find another version of File:Petrus Christus Nativity detail.jpg, which as you and Brian pointed out, isn't very clear. I hope the new file is better. Victoria (tk) 19:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite nice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific read; Support...Modernist (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Modernist! Victoria (tk) 16:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a few minor prose points that don't affect my support, but I hope may be helpful:

"Old and New testament" in the lead but in the main text "Old and New Testament"
"eucharistic vestments" … "Eucharistic host" – more inconsistent capitalisation
"Sepulchre" – I thought this was BrEng, and the AmEng was "sepulcher", and as the rest of the text is AmEng you may like to consider.

That's all from me. A fine article, highly readable and beautifully sourced and illustrated. Clearly of FA standard in my view. – Tim riley talk 14:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you Tim, for reading and for the nice comments! Good catches all, and now all fixed! Victoria (tk) 16:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: The one sources issue that I raised in my earlier review has been fixed. There are no further issues - all sources are of appropriate quality, and information is correctly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My earlier concerns having been adequately addressed, I am happy to support this charming article. I am sorry to have been so long returning to it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian, for the source review and for supporting. Victoria (tk) 17:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Beautiful prose. Delightful and clear! Will make a great feature in December. I love the images. I rea this for sourcing and prose, leaving images for someone with greater understanding of such things. auntieruth (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot to point out, Andrew Mellon is linked twice, once in the lead, and another time in the last para. I have no problem with that, since the mentions are so far apart, but someone will quibble. auntieruth (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruth, tks for checking for duplinks. Although some editors like to only link once in the entire article, it is within guidelines (last time I looked!) to link once in the lead and once again in the main body as a matter of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since you were away for a while you may not know there's a very useful duplink checker you can install. It highlights with red borders the second and subsequent links to the one page within the lead, and then within the main body (i.e. following the "once in lead, once in main" guideline I mentioned above). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Auntieruth55, thanks so much for reading and supporting. Yes, I tend to link twice, in the lead and again in the body. Victoria (tk) 01:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 18:45, 18 November 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.