Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Magdalen Reading/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 SandyGeorgia 05:54, 27 May 2011 [1].

The Magdalen Reading

[edit]

The Magdalen Reading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ceoil, Truthkeeper88, Johnbod.

An oak panel fragment from a lost 1430's altarpiece by Rogier van der Weyden. I saw it in London about two months ago, and it has qualities and depth you can never get from reproduction. Whatever. The hope is thats its as interesting to read as it was to write. Ceoil 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Early Renaissance artists often conveyed this idea by portraying contemplative eyes, associating tears with words, and in turn weeping with reading." - source?
  • Don't include leading zeros on dates
  • Use a consistent formatting for multi-author works and refs
  • Ref 31: why include only one editor here?
  • No references to Campbell 1997 or White 1996
  • Use English spelling for Antwerpe?
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher location or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks. All done except: I cant see any leading zeros (and surprised I might have missed them, though its easy to develop a blind spot about these things), and I'd prefer to keep Campbel 1997 and White 1996 in the biblo as they are good authoritive sources and the section intended as a resource as much as evidence of fact. Your first point, re tears, will need a few hours to fix, I know where it came from, but its not where I am this evening. Bear with me. Ceoil 22:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only leading zero was note 5 - now removed. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cite at the end of the parapgraph covers the "contemplative eyes" section. TK (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This looks like a fascinating article, and I look forward to reading it through. In the meantime there are some prose issues in lead:-

  • The citation in the first line is awkwardly placed in the middle of a phrase: "oil on oak[1] altarpiece". What exactly is being verified here? Couldn't the citation be placed at least at the end of the phrase?
  • Some reference should be made in the first paragraph to the background figure, since its presence was evidently important in identifying the piece.
  • "which she uses in biblical sources to clean Christ's feet". Might benefit from a slight rephrase: "which according to biblical sources she uses to clean Christ's feet".
  • The construction: "A sacra conversazione, substantial portions of the original altarpiece are now lost" is not grammatically sound. It needs to be recast along the lines "The original altarpiece is a sacra conversazione, substantial portions of which are now lost".
  • "The date..." rather than "The dating..."
  • 1438 CE?
  • Why is the artist referred to as "Rogier" in the lead, and "Van der Weyden" later in the text?

Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done, except I can't see "1438 CE". Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was fussily enquiring whether the year 1438 was CE. Forget about it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • Description
    • Will non-Christians identify "the Lord" with Christ?
    • "counterpoint" is not a hyphenated term
    • The quotes from Campbell in the first paragraph should be attributed"
    • "her quite detachment" → "her quiet detachment"
    • "Charles Darwent observed that a hint of the Magdalen's past is given through the nap in the fur lining of her dress and in the few strands of hair loose from her veil". This is a little cryptic for those unfamiliar with the Gospel depiction of the Magdalen as a saved "fallen woman". There is also the question of how Darwent deduces this past from the very sparse features that he mentions.
    • Paragraphs should not begin with pronouns ("He...")
      All fixed except 'Charles Darwent observed'. Will take of. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded to clarify the position. Darwent was writing for The Independent in 2009, so probably its recieved wisdom, taken from art historians, likely he deduced nothing himself just borrowed from sources (as we do, they are likely already cited in the article). Do we need to dig back further to reinforce, its the default position, fur lining and loose hair strands are strong indicators. Ceoil 00:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Added a source and clarified this point. TK (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Altarpiece fragment
    • "...the point on the London panel" - this is the first reference in the text to "the London panel"; this description previously occurs in image captions. For clarity, it might be worth incorporating this wording into the lead.
    • "...which first appeared in 1907." I don't think "appeared" is the right word here.
    • I looked in vain on the image of the Catherine fragment for the "small triangle of red, outlined by a continuous underdrawn brushstroke" that Campbell describes.
    • A couple of awkward subjunctives in the last sentence: "would have been one of ... he would still have been". The word "was" could replace each.
      All done except, 'small triangle of red'. Need to find a high resolution version. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Added and clarified that the piece of red is only visible when the panel is removed from the frame. TK (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iconography
    • The Luke page range should be a dash not a hyphen
    • I don't understand "in which the eyes of sinners turn contrite and tearful when forgiven by Jesus." Luke 10: 38–42 says nothing about eyes turning contrite, forgiveness, etc (see the link). Could it be that a different passage of scripture is intended here? This is important in view of the iconographic analysis which follows the biblical reference.
    • 2nd paragraph onwards: Until now you have always referred to "the Magdalen". Now we have: "Magdalen's devotion...", "Magdalen lived..." etc, as though this was her name. This is surely not correct; "Magdalen" means "of Magdala"; it is not a name.
    • We have the phrase "firmly established" twice in close proximity.
      All fixed except, contrite and tearful - might ask Johnbod to help on that one. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Replaced the bible verse which really only underscores her identification as the tearful sinner. The contrite, etc., is an extension of that, but more has been added to clarify. TK (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provenance
    • No hyphen in "early 19th"
    • Again, paragraphs should not begin with pronouns ("It is...")
    • "the leading dealers" needs a little qualifying. "Haarlem's leading dealers", perhaps, or something similar?
    • National Gallery – which National Gallery? Location and link required
    • The comma after "plain brown" should be removed to preserve the meaning.
    • "Norwegian Christian Langaad" is a very poor formulation. Perhaps "a Norwegian collector, Christian Langaad"?
      Got these. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are relatively minor points which should not be difficult to resolve. PLease ping when you need me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: the link on Sybil goes to a disambiguation page. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, thanks for such a detailed view, and for catching those. We're working through, almost there. Ceoil 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My comments listed above have been carefully addressed. For the sake of prose flow, I would humbly suggest that the words "who were" are inserted after "Nieuwenhuys brothers" in the final section. And I still think the "plain brown" comma shouldn't be there. However, I shall nitpick no more; overall this is a first class article – informative, well-researched and well presented. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the help. Ceoil 21:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The dimensions of the painting are given in a figure caption. It might be useful to include this information in the body of the article.
Done. Ceoil 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date is mentioned in the lead but not in the main text. Why c. 1435? Why before 1438?
Now explained the article body. Ceoil 22:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The transfer onto a mahogany panel is mentioned in the lead but not in the main text. Who did the transfer?
Now moved, and nobody knows - see below. Note added. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My own preference if for the lead to have no inline citations (other than for direct quotes). The lead should summarise the article.Aa77zz (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the edits Aa77zz, getting to these. Your quite right about the lead and citations, but some of the info available is so sparce, there is not much to expand upon in the article body. But I'll see what I can dig up. I do remember a rationall for c. 1435 rather than 1438, just trying to remember where.....Ceoil 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is explained in John Ward's essay. Give me a chance to get up to speed here and will address it. Almost there .... TK (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More on the date
The sentence for the 1435 and 1438 dates in the lead cites Drees (2001:501). The reference is incorrect. Drees (2001) is an edited book. Drees is the editor. Pages 500-502 contain an article with the title “Weyden, Rogier van der (c. 1399–1464)” by Nicola McDonald. On page 500 McDonald states that the Miraflores Triptych is dated to around 1435 while on the following page she states that Magdalene Reading (sic) is “commonly dated to this early period”. The 1438 date is not mentioned here but I notice that the National Gallery website claims that the picture dates from "before 1438". The McDonald article is not an ideal source. Does Lorne Campbell speculate on a date for the painting?
The McDonald article claims that “by 1435 he had settled in Brussels, where he was the town painter from 1436 until his death”. If you can find a better source then perhaps Brussels could be mentioned in the article. Aa77zz (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two items in the Bibliography section are not cited: Campbell (1997) and White (1996). A "Further reading" section could be created for these. In addition, there is a recent book on Van Der Weyden that was published to accompany an exhibition held in Leuven in 2009. This could also be added to the "Further reading": Campbell, Lorne; Stock, Jan van der, eds. (2009), Rogier Van Der Weyden 1400-1464: Master of Passions, Waanders Uitgeverij, ISBN 9085261058. Aa77zz (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing edited books
When citing a particular page in an edited book, the author and title of the article cited should be specified - and not just the editors and title of the book. Page 203 is cited in Ridderbos et al (2005). This is an edited book and from the preview in google books the reference would appear to be to a page in an article by Till-Holger Borchert (pp173-217(?)). The citation should therefore be to “Borchert, 2005” and the Bibliography should contain something resembling: Borchert, Till-Holger (2005), "Collecting early Netherlandish paintings in Europe and the United States", in Ridderbos, Bernhard; Van Buren, Anne; Van Veen, Henk (eds.), Early Netherlandish Paintings: Rediscovery, Reception and Research, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 173–217, ISBN 978-9-053-56614-5.
Done. Ceoil 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Riches & Salih (2002) is also an edited book. The reference in the article is to page 130. Here again the author and title of the chapter should be specified. Aa77zz (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, these have been fixed. TK (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on the lead
The lead does not mention the Provenance, and only briefly mentions the Iconography.
Done. Ceoil 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the second paragraph beginning with: “Its date is uncertain but believed” – is slightly ambiguous – does “Its” refer to the drawing or the painting?
Done. Ceoil 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence “The Magdalen Reading was transferred to mahogany panel in the 19th century; the Lisbon male head is still on its original oak panel.[5]” is rather detailed for the lead and appears slightly out of place at the beginning of the third paragraph that continues with a discussion of the drawing introduced in the second paragraph. Aa77zz (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is reorganised, but still looking for more info on the transfer. Ceoil 20:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Campbell's catalogue says the transfer was "Certainly after 1828, probably after 1845, and certainly before 1860" when the NG acquired it (p. 394). He adds that the mahogany is West Indian swietenia. Added as a note. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
The sentence in "Dating and provenance" beginning "The Magdalen Reading can first be traced to an 1811 sale" cites an article in the Independent. The article does not support the details in the sentence - and a newspaper article is a poor source for this information. A more scholarly source is required.
I trimmed down the claims. I read the section of the Master of Passions book a number of weeks ago (in a book shop while traveling), and can say Darwent was borrowing heavily from Campbell; will have a copy fairly soon, and can reinstate the claims then, but though they are interesting they are not substantial overall, so gone for now. Ceoil 23:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any published information on the current condition of the painting? How extensively has the painting been restored? (The use of oil paint is currently only mentioned in the first line of the lead)
Beyond the panel transfer and cleaning of the actual canvas there is no mention of other restoration in any of the sources I have seen. Ceoil 23:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added on this. Generally it is in "very good condition". Campbell has more on small problems than I have added. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any information in the uncited Lorne (1997) article that could be usefully added to the article? Aa77zz (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – another fine article from a great team of editors. This is the first time that I’ve participated in the FAC review process and I’ve been impressed by the rapid and thoughtful responses to my concerns. Today I popped into the NG to take a look at the picture – very beautiful. I was fortunate not to get delayed by the Obama visit to the palace. Aa77zz (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the helpful review and the support! I'm envious that you've seen the painting - I've not seen it, but hope some day to have the opportunity. TK (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too, great help. Glad you saw the painting. What a room its in, two pics down from the The Arnolfini Portrait. Ceoil 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Thorough job, excellent article. JNW (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JNW. Ceoil

Support It's very interesting. Good job...Modernist (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Modernist! TK (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Disclaimer: I've made small edits to the article, asked questions on the talk page, and interact with the editors... but the main point is that the article has come along nicely since the FAC started and now seems objectively FA-worthy. Very well researched. Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing

Conversions (from m and cm to feet and inches) missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 27 May 2011 (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/The_Magdalen_Reading/archive1&oldid=1136095259"