Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Dresden Triptych

Dresden Triptych[edit]

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath, starting with {{TFAR nom|article=NAME OF ARTICLE}}.

The result was: not scheduled by Bencherlite ^Talk 20:16, 22 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The Dresden Triptych (or Virgin and Child with St. Michael and St. Catherine and a Donor) is a very small hinged-triptych altarpiece by the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck. It is signed and dated 1437, and in the permanent collection of the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden. The only extant triptych attributed to van Eyck, and the only non-portrait signed with his personal motto, the triptych can be placed at the midpoint of his known works. Elisabeth Dhanens describes it as "the most charming, delicate and appealing work by Jan van Eyck that has survived". The paintings on the two outer wings become visible when the triptych is closed. They show the Virgin Mary and Archangel Gabriel in an Annunciation scene painted in grisaille, which because of their near-monochrome colouring give the impression that the figures are sculpted. The three inner panels are set in an ecclesiastical interior. In the central inner panel Mary is seated and holds the Christ Child on her lap. On the left hand wing Archangel Michael presents a kneeling donor, while on the right St. Catherine of Alexandria stands reading a prayer book. The work may have been intended for private devotion, perhaps as a portable altarpiece for a migrant cleric. That the frames are so richly decorated with Latin inscriptions indicates that the donor, whose identity is lost, was highly educated and cultured. (Full article...)

A beauty with meaning, - probably better to show only part of the image, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The article passed FA, seems no real reason to oppose TFA. Someone saying they have some sort of vague "issue" with something seems rather bizarre. It's a lovely article. Montanabw^(talk) 17:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK with rationale of co-editor, particularly due to image issues. But sure hope it can run at Xmas, otherwise the place gets deluged by junk like "the Christmas Poo..." Montanabw^(talk) 22:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as co-author for the following reasons: 1., the main image still needs to be sorted out so that when the article is show-cased on the front page the high res Google art project image can be used; b., we have few art articles, fewer still about van Eyck and that well is about to run dry, and one was already featured as TFA in March so best to save this; c., I believe that there might be a request for an art article currently at FAC to run in September, which would put too many from a category that's unrepresented too close together; c., with the colors and the themes suggest to run during the Christmas holidays; d., there's another nomination below, Isabeau of Bavaria, that I wrote too, putting two noms for articles written by the same author in a very close time period. None of these are vague, and would like to see points calculated here. What is vague, however, and not something to be calculated is my request to respect that I've been ill and not put a notification on my page asking to rework a blurb, [1]. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, you gave good reasons to wait that I didn't see. Sorry if I worded wrong that my blurb attempt. could not possibly please you unchanged. I would propose this for Christmas now, if we didn't have a request for 25 December already. (The Isabeau nomination appeared later.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Victoriaearle above...Modernist (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Victoria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that there is a christmas nom already, possibly save this for the Annunciation in March MChesterMC (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]