![]() | Portrait of a Lady (van der Weyden) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2010. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 18, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that while
veils in the 1400s were usually worn to preserve modesty, the garment worn by the sitter in
Rogier van der Weyden's c. 1460 painting
Portrait of a Woman (pictured) is used to draw attention to her unusual beauty and sensuality? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Hi Calliopejen1, sorry to have reverted you, but the 2nd image used as the main pic looks very flat and red washed on my screen. I suppose the one I have is low enough res, I might try and look around for a better alt to upload. Thanks for the other edits though. Ceoil sláinte 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion we should call Rogier van der Weyden - van der Weyden rather that Rogier... Modernist ( talk) 21:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
References
"File:Portrait of a Lady 1460.jpg" says under it that: "This similar painting with much less detail is from his workshop and may date from as late as 1466." From where do we derive that it has "much less detail?" Is that sourced? If it is not sourced I don't think it should be said. Bus stop ( talk) 20:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi 83d40m, regarding this edit [1], I would appreciate very much if you did re-engage; if there are errors in the page I would very much like to know. Any partial revert of your earlier edits,[2] [3], I suppose was carelessness and not intentional. I was impressed at the time, and likely going back over the page I reinstated earlier statements which might have had weak founding. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
regarding the caption -- the similar portrait was compared to this painting when they were displayed together once and I think that is cited in the text ---- 83d40m ( talk) 20:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
here is the text in the article that discusses the differences between the two -- The high quality of the painting was shown clearly when it was hanging in London alongside the very similar National Gallery's workshop painting for a few weeks in the 2000s, as the London information display caption freely admitted. The London subject has softer, more rounded features and is much younger and less individually characterised than the c 1460 model. The technique also is less subtle and fine in the London work.[29]
83d40m ( talk) 20:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Memling's Portrait of an Old Woman from c. 1470 would be a good addition for the gallery. The composition is very similar and the background is also blue-green and lacks any detail unlike most of his portraits. I don't see it on commons though, so you'd have to upload it. Yomangani talk 10:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What's this "diamond-shaped background" and its "sharply pointed angles" all about? Am I missing something? (I don't think I've ever seen this painting in real life, but I don't see any of the angles in the image here). Yomangani talk 11:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Well done... Modernist ( talk) 13:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
One reason I supported this article at FAC was its lovely uncluttered look. Why has an infobox been added? The infobox doesn't appear to add new information that wasn't in the image caption, but it does detract from the look of the article. Unless someone objects, I'll remove it. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
"Netherlandish"???? Surely that should be Dutch! The Netherlands might be the country, but the painting and the artist are Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 ( talk) 15:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Our article Friedrich II, Duke of Anhalt says he died in 1918, so he couldn't have sold a picture in 1926. Most likely it was Joachim Ernst, Duke of Anhalt who sold it in 1926, but that's just me guessing. jnestorius( talk) 19:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
"The woman's left ear is set, according to art historian Norbert Schneider, unnaturally high and far back". I have this book, no such info at all. Only about veil. -- Shakko ( talk) 16:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I see that Wikipedia's arbitration committee has just ruled on infoboxes. The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article, and the decision whether to use one in an article should be reached by consensus.
I can't say that any consensus was reached here. An editor added an infobox here. It was reverted three minutes later by another editor with a curt "no" and a commented command in the markup not to insert them added for good measure. The infobox was subsequently restored by the original uploader. Some hours later another editor posted his objection on aesthetic grounds. This was agreed by a fellow editor 11 minutes later who then removed the infobox.
All this took place in the matter of a few hours and a cursory inspection of talk pages show that the three editors involved in deleting the infobox work closely together in the Visual Arts project.
I don't call that consensus building :(
I'm going to make a WP:BOLD edit restoring the infobox and on this occasion request that a proper exchange of views is held with a genuine attempt to reach consensus.
For my own part I would say that the aesthetic scruples expressed by Truthkeep88 are entirely spurious and overridden by functional concerns i.e the proper documentation and collocation of information with a view to Wikipedia's future development (for example as a neural network). Amanda Jane Mason ( talk) 06:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jack Merridew, in your guise as Amanda Jane Madison (cute ref to Amandajm, by the way). That's all I wanted to say. Kafka Liz ( talk) 22:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Rogier van der Weyden - Portrait of a Lady - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 22, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-05-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Portrait of a Lady (van der Weyden) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2010. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 18, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that while
veils in the 1400s were usually worn to preserve modesty, the garment worn by the sitter in
Rogier van der Weyden's c. 1460 painting
Portrait of a Woman (pictured) is used to draw attention to her unusual beauty and sensuality? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Hi Calliopejen1, sorry to have reverted you, but the 2nd image used as the main pic looks very flat and red washed on my screen. I suppose the one I have is low enough res, I might try and look around for a better alt to upload. Thanks for the other edits though. Ceoil sláinte 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion we should call Rogier van der Weyden - van der Weyden rather that Rogier... Modernist ( talk) 21:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
References
"File:Portrait of a Lady 1460.jpg" says under it that: "This similar painting with much less detail is from his workshop and may date from as late as 1466." From where do we derive that it has "much less detail?" Is that sourced? If it is not sourced I don't think it should be said. Bus stop ( talk) 20:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi 83d40m, regarding this edit [1], I would appreciate very much if you did re-engage; if there are errors in the page I would very much like to know. Any partial revert of your earlier edits,[2] [3], I suppose was carelessness and not intentional. I was impressed at the time, and likely going back over the page I reinstated earlier statements which might have had weak founding. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
regarding the caption -- the similar portrait was compared to this painting when they were displayed together once and I think that is cited in the text ---- 83d40m ( talk) 20:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
here is the text in the article that discusses the differences between the two -- The high quality of the painting was shown clearly when it was hanging in London alongside the very similar National Gallery's workshop painting for a few weeks in the 2000s, as the London information display caption freely admitted. The London subject has softer, more rounded features and is much younger and less individually characterised than the c 1460 model. The technique also is less subtle and fine in the London work.[29]
83d40m ( talk) 20:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Memling's Portrait of an Old Woman from c. 1470 would be a good addition for the gallery. The composition is very similar and the background is also blue-green and lacks any detail unlike most of his portraits. I don't see it on commons though, so you'd have to upload it. Yomangani talk 10:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What's this "diamond-shaped background" and its "sharply pointed angles" all about? Am I missing something? (I don't think I've ever seen this painting in real life, but I don't see any of the angles in the image here). Yomangani talk 11:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Well done... Modernist ( talk) 13:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
One reason I supported this article at FAC was its lovely uncluttered look. Why has an infobox been added? The infobox doesn't appear to add new information that wasn't in the image caption, but it does detract from the look of the article. Unless someone objects, I'll remove it. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
"Netherlandish"???? Surely that should be Dutch! The Netherlands might be the country, but the painting and the artist are Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 ( talk) 15:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Our article Friedrich II, Duke of Anhalt says he died in 1918, so he couldn't have sold a picture in 1926. Most likely it was Joachim Ernst, Duke of Anhalt who sold it in 1926, but that's just me guessing. jnestorius( talk) 19:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
"The woman's left ear is set, according to art historian Norbert Schneider, unnaturally high and far back". I have this book, no such info at all. Only about veil. -- Shakko ( talk) 16:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I see that Wikipedia's arbitration committee has just ruled on infoboxes. The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article, and the decision whether to use one in an article should be reached by consensus.
I can't say that any consensus was reached here. An editor added an infobox here. It was reverted three minutes later by another editor with a curt "no" and a commented command in the markup not to insert them added for good measure. The infobox was subsequently restored by the original uploader. Some hours later another editor posted his objection on aesthetic grounds. This was agreed by a fellow editor 11 minutes later who then removed the infobox.
All this took place in the matter of a few hours and a cursory inspection of talk pages show that the three editors involved in deleting the infobox work closely together in the Visual Arts project.
I don't call that consensus building :(
I'm going to make a WP:BOLD edit restoring the infobox and on this occasion request that a proper exchange of views is held with a genuine attempt to reach consensus.
For my own part I would say that the aesthetic scruples expressed by Truthkeep88 are entirely spurious and overridden by functional concerns i.e the proper documentation and collocation of information with a view to Wikipedia's future development (for example as a neural network). Amanda Jane Mason ( talk) 06:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jack Merridew, in your guise as Amanda Jane Madison (cute ref to Amandajm, by the way). That's all I wanted to say. Kafka Liz ( talk) 22:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Rogier van der Weyden - Portrait of a Lady - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 22, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-05-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)