The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Madonna in the Church ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
Almost supernaturally beautiful panel painting by Jan van Eyck. Thanks to Kafka Liz and the incorrigible Cocolacoste for their copyedits and suggestions. Ceoil ( talk) 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I hope to read and review this excellent article in more detail in the near-future.— indopug ( talk) 13:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
In the discussion of the possible diptych I am confused as to whether the existing panel was on the left or on the right hand side. If commentators disagree then this should be clearly stated in the text. The lead states: "Most art historians see the panel as the right wing of a dismantled diptych... " but the section "Copies and lost diptych" starts with "Art historians believe that there are a number of indicators that the panel was created as the left-hand wing of a dismantled diptych." but then states "Harbison believes the panel is "almost certainly only the right-hand wing of a devotional diptych"." Aa77zz ( talk) 08:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Image review
Update sorry for the delay in coming back to this. A quick glance-through indicates that my earlier concerns have been addressed and that the article is easily FA-level; I will hopefully find time for a thorough read in the coming days and support then. In the meantime:
Support regardless of my mostly minor quibbles above.— indopug ( talk) 18:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Delegate note -- Just a couple of thoughts re. the lead: 1) given Eyck's life date are approximate and therefore a bit of a mouthful, I don't know that you need them in the opening sentence -- he's linked, and the date of the painting is given, so I think there's enough info; 2) since you explain Virgin of Tenderness, I don't think "touchingly" is really necessary in the same sentence -- seems a trifle peacockish to me anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 04:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Madonna in the Church ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
Almost supernaturally beautiful panel painting by Jan van Eyck. Thanks to Kafka Liz and the incorrigible Cocolacoste for their copyedits and suggestions. Ceoil ( talk) 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I hope to read and review this excellent article in more detail in the near-future.— indopug ( talk) 13:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
In the discussion of the possible diptych I am confused as to whether the existing panel was on the left or on the right hand side. If commentators disagree then this should be clearly stated in the text. The lead states: "Most art historians see the panel as the right wing of a dismantled diptych... " but the section "Copies and lost diptych" starts with "Art historians believe that there are a number of indicators that the panel was created as the left-hand wing of a dismantled diptych." but then states "Harbison believes the panel is "almost certainly only the right-hand wing of a devotional diptych"." Aa77zz ( talk) 08:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Image review
Update sorry for the delay in coming back to this. A quick glance-through indicates that my earlier concerns have been addressed and that the article is easily FA-level; I will hopefully find time for a thorough read in the coming days and support then. In the meantime:
Support regardless of my mostly minor quibbles above.— indopug ( talk) 18:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Delegate note -- Just a couple of thoughts re. the lead: 1) given Eyck's life date are approximate and therefore a bit of a mouthful, I don't know that you need them in the opening sentence -- he's linked, and the date of the painting is given, so I think there's enough info; 2) since you explain Virgin of Tenderness, I don't think "touchingly" is really necessary in the same sentence -- seems a trifle peacockish to me anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 04:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC) reply