Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Streatham portrait/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 Ian Rose 10:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Streatham portrait[edit]

Streatham portrait (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about something different. You'll not find a single link to Indonesia. Not even one. No, not even through the director's grandparents like in Frank's Cock. The "Streatham" portrait caused a minor stir on its discovery in 2006, as it was thought to possibly be a life portrait of the mysterious Lady Jane Grey. Testing has discounted that, although it is currently thought to possibly be a reproduction of a life portrait. Sadly, no academic articles on this subject have been forthcoming, although we do have several news reports, a short discussion in a history book, and discussion from an independent research on the subject (see the GA review for how that meets WP:SPS).

This article had a tough GA review from User:J Milburn, a useful PR from the ever-helpful Tim riley, SchroCat, and PKM, and helpful comments from Ceoil and Victoriaearle. I think it is a useful look at a historical curiosity, which is well-illustrated and (I hope) well written. Enjoy! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was happy with the article at PR, and the changes since then have only strengthed it further. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GabeMc[edit]

Lead
  • Per WP:IMGSYN: "Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px")." The lead image is currently 350px, which seems rather large on my screen.
  • Usually is the key word. Visual arts articles generally have larger lede images, as the detail must be seen. That means having the painting bigger than the average lede image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if it looks daft on a 19-inch screen then how will this look on a Kindle? Keep in mind that a reader who wants to see a larger version will click the image, so you need not present it in the ideal viewing size. Per WP:IMGSIZE: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference, so the use of upright with a scaling factor is preferred wherever sensible." So, per the MoS, if you insist on defining the size of the image, then you should use the upright scaling factor. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that previous articles have been passed while not 100% FA compliant is WP:OSE, right? Per WP:IMGSIZE: "Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" ("300px")", which IMO implies that they are available and that they should not exceed the equivalent of 300px. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or it can be indicative of a practice which has not been formalized yet, always a possibility. Downsized to 300. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although of historical interest, it is generally considered to be weak and has been described as "appallingly bad" and "paint-by-numbers".[1]"
1) generally is superfluous; omit. 2) Who described it as "appallingly bad" and "paint-by-numbers". I know that the MoS does not require in-line attribution for quotes that are less than a full sentence, but this one strikes me as needing attribution. After all, if this is the first taste of critical response it would be nice to know who's opinion we are being given.
  • I disagree on both counts. Generally is not superfluous, as there may be people who consider it acceptable or interesting, and (as you note yourself) the MOS does not require attribution in this situation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, removed altogether, as there is little way of introducing the quoted individuals without overwhelming the lede. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It shows a three-quarter-length depiction of a young woman in Tudor-period dress holding a prayer book but without a wedding ring, with the faded inscription "Lady Jayne" or "Lady Iayne" in the upper-left corner."
"without a wedding ring" comes out of nowhere. Why are you going out of your way to assert this negative? She isn't eyeglasses either. If "holding a prayer book but without a wedding ring" has symbolic significance, then you should set some background in the lead so that this makes sense.
  • "Believing the portrait to be an accurate (though poorly-done) reproduction of a contemporary painting of Jane".
1) "(though poorly-done)" is awkward, IMO. Consider "(though poorly-executed)", or similar. 2) Might this be better set-off with commas in stead of brackets?
  • Sure. Done and done (though, come to think of it, poorly doesn't require a hyphen, as it is an adverb). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foley had the work verified, restored it, and negotiated its sale."
This is clunky. Consider: "Foley had it verified and restored before negotiating its sale", or similar.
  • "the portrait was bought by a collector in Streatham, London, by the early 20th century. In December 2005 it was examined by the art dealer Christopher Foley. Believing the portrait to be an accurate (though poorly-done) reproduction of a contemporary painting of Jane, Foley had the work verified, restored it, and negotiated its sale. The portrait was purchased by the National Portrait Gallery in London,"
portrait is repeated four times in close proximity in this paragraph, and "The portrait was purchased by the National Portrait Gallery in London" is particularly jarring. Consider: "the portrait was bought by a collector in Streatham, London, by the early 20th century. In December 2005 it was examined by the art dealer Christopher Foley. Believing the painting to be an accurate (though poorly-executed) reproduction of a contemporary painting of Jane, Foley had it verified and restored before negotiating its sale. The work was purchased by the National Portrait Gallery in London", or similar.
  • "with the price rumoured to be £100,000".
Depending on who you ask, an infinitive ought not follow a verb. Since there is already one of these text-stings in the first paragraph, why not recast as: "for an estimated £100,000", or similar. This would flow better without a need for the comma, and it would avoid the fourth use of a "p" sound in the sentence.
  • Rather like that "for a" construction, thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and he and Foley challenged each other's identifications in the media over a period of more than a year."
Were the identifications made in the media? Also, "over a period of" is excess. "Consider: "and he and Foley publicly challenged each other's identifications for more than a year", or similar.
  • "As of early 2013 the portrait is displayed at Montacute House in Somerset."
early is superfluous and overly specific; omit.
  • You use "portrait" no less than six times in the second paragraph. A few of these should be substituted even if you don't like my above suggestions.
  • Down to four. NPG is unavoidable, and the first and last are much more difficult to rework than the others as they both indicate a shift in subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subject
  • "She was in correspondence with Protestant leaders in Continental Europe, such as Heinrich Bullinger, and dressed plainly; her last words are reported to have been "Lord, into thy hands I commend my spirit!".[3]"
Omit the redundant terminal punctuation.
  • "the short-lived King Edward VI."
I think "the short-lived" is excess detail about Edward, since you mention that he died in the next sentence. Also, it seems like WP:OR, since the cited source does not describe him as "short-lived". 16 was young, but nearly middle-age for the time, and the same age that Lady Jane was executed.
  • "and first cousin once removed to his grandson"
1) Will the casual reader know what once removed means? 2) The cited source does not support this statetment, making it unverified original research.
  • Per WP:V: Citation should be for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". I don't think this falls under that scope. That being said, it is most certainly not OR, as references do exist: example. If you insist, I can cite it, but that would mostly serve to balloon the list of works cited with no significant impact on the article. First cousin once removed has been, against my better judgment, linked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cited source does not go into this level of detail regarding the familiar relationships, and the word cousin is not used. Are you saying that if you know that they were "first cousin[s] once removed" that the following citation need not support this assertion because you know its true and its not contentious? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Que? This has cousin in the first paragraph. The issue was "once removed", which is not OR, just unreferenced. If you insist, fine, but I only do it begrudgingly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You recently added that source; the source that was cited when I reviewed the article—the BBC—does not state that they were cousins. Which text-sting in the cited source says: "Lady Jane Grey was a first cousin once removed to King Edward VI." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cited source does not go into this level of detail regarding the familiar relationships" (00:24 UTC); ODNB added to that paragraph: 00:08 UTC. That you did not check again before writing your second comment is not my fault. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? So instead of just saying: "You're right. That part wasn't sourced when you reviewed the article so I've added another reference" you are playing the: "its sourced" game? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I noted explicitly below that I have added another source, I expected you to actually revisit the article to verify that I had done so before continuing your line of questioning. I do not deny that the BBC source did not support that they were cousins. I am just curious as to why you didn't attempt to see what changes I had made before insisting that something was unreferenced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So instead of just saying: "You're right. That part wasn't sourced when you reviewed the article so I've added another reference" you're playing a game, pretending that the onus is on me to check your every revision. All you had to say was its sourced now. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are the reviewer. If you say something is not cited, and I note elsewhere that a citation has been added to text relevant to the issue you mentioned, then you may want to check it. That's just good reviewing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you realize how many words you've written not telling me that you sourced the claim? For example, instead of "Que? This has cousin in the first paragraph. The issue was "once removed", which is not OR, just unreferenced. If you insist, fine, but I only do it begrudgingly", you could have written: "Its now sourced", or similar and the concern would have ended there. I think you were doing well with the review until I found some stuff that wasn't sourced, which embarrassed you and led to the personal attacks. Just relax, man! I have no ill-will toward you; its quite the opposite actually. I admire your work. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Protestant faction proclaimed her queen"
This needs the context of why religion is mentioned here. I.e., the faction wanted to prevent Mary Tudor's accession to the throne because she was Catholic.
  • "Lady Jane Grey was the great-granddaughter of Henry VII through his youngest daughter Mary Tudor, and first cousin once removed to his grandson, the short-lived King Edward VI."
1) It seems a bit odd to mention her great-grandfather and her grandmother, but not her mother or father. 2) The cited source states: "Through her mother, Lady Frances Brandon, she was the great-granddaughter of Henry VII", but you have it as "Lady Jane Grey was the great-granddaughter of Henry VII through his youngest daughter Mary Tudor", which, since its not supported by the cited source, is WP:OR. Unless I missed it, the cited source does not state that Mary Tudor was Lady Jane Grey's grandmother, so per WP:VERIFY you need to add an additional source or copyedit away the unsourced statements.
  • Again, read the definition of OR. "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" (WP:OR), not just unreferenced material. It's fine and dandy for you to throw this alphabet soup around, but at least know what you're writing. Jane Grey's father is mentioned below, and her mother had little impact on Jane's claim to the throne. Her relationship with Henry, however, was everything, and that's why he is mentioned here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you asserting that as long as you know its true then you don't need the cited source to support the facts presented in the sentence? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ODNB has Mary as Jane's grandmother, and it was added below. I just forgot to note it here. AGF a little, please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the great-granddaughter of Henry VII through his youngest daughter Mary Tudor, and first cousin once removed to his grandson, the short-lived King Edward VI" is a little too close to a text-string from Lady Jane Grey: "The great-granddaughter of Henry VII through his younger daughter Mary, Jane was a first cousin once removed of Edward VI."
You could argue that this isn't creative enough to justify a paraphrase, or require attribution, but IMO it is too close to material from another Wikipedia article. Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia: "copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution to indicate it. At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied."
  • The text was copied from Execution of Lady Jane Grey and later paraphrased a little through the GAC and PR process. Attribution is explicitly given on the article talk page, per policy, and has been from the first edit to the talk page. If it was not attributed at the other page, that is through no fault of my own and has no impact on the article currently at FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cited source says nothing about cousins; why do you think you can extrapolate on what the cited source verifies? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it does. You just didn't see it. ODNB has cousins explicitly written in the first paragraph. Besides, why is this reply here? The point was about attribution, which I answered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which text-sting in the original cited source——the BBC——says: "Lady Jane Grey was a first cousin once removed to King Edward VI"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment was added after I duplicated the ODNB source (00:08 vs 00:21), adding it to the biographical section. I wrote the reply assuming you had seen that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two weeks after the death of her brother, Mary, with the support of the English people"
Edward was Mary's half-brother, but perhaps this distinction isn't necessary.
  • Considering the patrilineal descent required for the throne, the important thing was that Henry VIII was the father of both (and thus half-brother/half-sister is not entirely pertinent for this very brief overview). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two weeks after the death of her brother, Mary, with the support of the English people, claimed the throne, which Jane relinquished after only nine days."
The cited source does not say how long Jane was Queen, so this is unverified WP:OR.
  • Read the first paragraph of the source. "Jane was nominal queen of England for just nine days in 1553, as part of an unsuccessful bid to prevent the accession of the Catholic Mary Tudor." Also, recheck your understanding of WP:OR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jane, her husband Lord Guildford Dudley and her father Henry, were imprisoned in the Tower of London on charges of high treason."
1) The cited source does not mention Jane's father's given name; it refers to him as Suffolk, so this is also unverified WP:OR. 2) The cited source does not actually say that Suffolk was "imprisoned in the Tower of London on charges of high treason". It states: "While Suffolk was pardoned, Jane and her husband were tried for high treason in November 1553." So while I sympathize that this is most likely true, per WP:VERIFY: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I'm sure this is verifiable, but not by using the cited source.
  • Verifiable =/= cited. Please read the policy a bit closer (and again with the OR; check your definition). I have added the ODNB to the end of this paragraph, which confirms Jane's father's name, and his participation in Wyatt's rebellion as more than a supporter. This has involved reworking the text a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you asserting that as long as you know its true then you don't need the cited source to support the facts presented in the sentence? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am saying that it is not OR if reliable sources exist and the information is verifiable, nothing more and nothing less. You are attempting to read too much out of my comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not disputed that citations should support what is in an article. That does not mean that it is OR to have information which is not cited, and your wanton use of the term is what I take issue with. Again, read the definition of OR. That you were mistaken in your use of the term is understandable. That you refuse to recognize you were mistaken, only evidence of severe underlying issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep your comments about the content of my edits, and not about me. Several of your replies border on personal attacks, IMO. From my perspective, you've deduced that they were cousins and added it to the article without sourcing. That's OR, IMO. Is your point here that nothing that's factual can be categorized as OR? I'm sorry if we have different understandings of the guideline, but you shouldn't make this personal. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) As mentioned elsewhere, that text was taken from another article (as attributed on the talk page), I could not have been an evil genius capable of discovering that they were cousins all on my lonesome and violating WP:OR 2) If having verifiable material uncited is OR in your opinion, then your understanding of OR is out of line with the current policy. Read the policy (for the fifth time... have you read it once?) 3) You have accused me of copyright violations, OR (serious offence as defined by the policy, and not your mistaken understanding of it), and playing games with you instead of trying to work with you to improve this article to be the best it can be. I consider those almost personal attacks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, you say I've misinterpreted WP:OR, WP:BURDEN, and WP:VERIFY: I say that if you write: "Lady Jane Grey was the great-granddaughter of Henry VII through his youngest daughter Mary Tudor, and first cousin once removed to his grandson, King Edward VI", but that's not at all supported by the provided source then its likely OR. Is it your position that nothing factual should be characterized as OR? Because there is nothing inherent in OR that demands that the material be inaccurate.GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In February 1554, Jane's father, who had been released, was one of the rebel leaders in Wyatt's rebellion."
More unverified WP:OR; the cited source does not refer to Suffolk as "one of the rebel leaders in Wyatt's rebellion"; it merely says that Suffolk supported Wyatt.
  • Are you asserting that as long as you know its true then you don't need the cited source to support the facts presented in the sentence? A supporter is quite a different thing then a leader, wouldn't you agree? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On Friday 12 February, Mary had Jane, then aged 16, and her husband, beheaded; her father suffered the same fate two days later.[2]"
1) The use of Friday seems overly specific. 2) That comma preceding beheaded seems excessive; omit.
  • "Of the 16th century English monarchs, Jane was long thought to be the only one without a surviving contemporary portrait; one was documented in a 1590 inventory, but is today lost."
1) This is a dangling modifier because the first clause refers to all the 16th century English Monarchs, but the subject of the sentence is Jane. Consider: "Jane was long thought to be the only 16th century English monarch without a surviving contemporary portrait", or similar. 2) "but is today lost" violates WP:REALTIME. Recast to avoid the reference to today.
  • "Some that had been identified as her were later considered to be of other sitters"
I'm not sure that sitters is the most encyclopedic substitute for Monarch.
  • Sitters is an art term, referring to the subject of the portrait, and not a substitute for monarch, and thus not exclude the possibility of works being identified as people who were not monarchs. See the last entry at Sitter.
  • That is a disambiguation page. The term is certainly common enough to not require a wiktionary link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other works, such as The Execution of Lady Jane Grey (1833) by Paul Delaroche, were painted years or centuries after her death.[7][8]"
Since the example you offered was painted 279 years after her death you should omit: "years". I.e., "were painted centuries after her death".
  • That was one example, one of the most famous, and the only one provided by the cited source. There are others, a bit closer... perhaps not very close, but not centuries. See [2]. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't doubt that there are examples from only years after her death, but you should either include one of those or remove it, because your set-up should refer to you actual example. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is one example. The article says "such as", meaning that there were many, many examples. It does not require me to include five or six examples. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a strawman. I suggest including two examples: the one already mentioned to cover centuries and a more contemporaneous one to cover years. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a bit more reasonable, but I still consider it unnecessary. As I mentioned, "such as" implies a wide body of work, one which includes a variety of portraits, and is thus more effective than giving the example of a portrait which only Jane Grey specialists may have heard of. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if I wrote: "'Green Sleeves' has been covered for years or centuries after it was written, such as John Anderson's 1996 version." Don't you think that begs for one more example? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • "Tarnya Cooper of the National Portrait Gallery gave less sharp criticism, stating that "it's a paint-by-number, labored copy",[8] and that "its value is as a historical document rather than a work of art".[11"
You should not introduce a direct quote with a subordinating conjunction; omit.
  • I have omitted, although not all style guides or sources support your understanding of the use of that. (example). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The patterns on her underskirt have maybe strawberries"
What's a "maybe strawberry"? This is clucky and awkward. Consider: "The patterns on her underskirt are thought to depict strawberries", or similar.
  • "The historian David Starkey described it as an "appallingly bad picture",[11] a sentiment which Foley echoed"
Unless I missed it, Foley has not yet been introduced.
  • "Zarin describes the painting as looking bleached in comparison with other portraits of monarchs, with "the flat face of a paper doll".[8] Edwards concurs, stating "the quality might be described as naive, primitive, or even folk art".[12]"
Edwards does not really concur with Zarin's assertion that the painting looks "bleached" or like a "paper doll". Edwards agrees that the quality of the painting is poor, but to present his opinion as supporting those specific complaints from Zarin is an improper synthesis.
  • An improper use of words, I agree, but not intended as WP:SYNTH. Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Production and early history
  • "Christopher Foley suggests that it was hurriedly completed for Jane's family from an original that 'had to be destroyed because it would have been too dangerous to own once Mary became queen'."
1) You should not introduce a direct quote with a subordinating conjunction. 2) Unless I'm confused, you first mention Foley in the preceding section, but he is not properly introduced there. This should be just Foley here, and his first introduction should be: "the art dealer Christopher Foley".
  • Fixed Foley. In this case, "that" or "which" is absolutely necessary: try reading this without the quotation marks. Eliminating "that" would make the sentence unreadable (i.e. "Foley suggests that it was hurriedly completed for Jane's family from an original had to be destroyed because it would have been too dangerous to own once Mary became queen.")
  • "Damage to the painting's mouth and eyes suggests that at one time it was vandalised"
The interrupter, "at one time", needs to be set-off with commas.
  • "Another portrait, also credited as Jane and strikingly similar in form"
I don't think that credited is the right verb here, since Jane did not paint the portrait. I can see why you've used it, but it doesn't feel right.
  • If the term was "attributed to", I'd agree with you. I think this one is okay as-is.00:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "A third copy, of lower quality, is known through records, although its whereabouts are today unknown.[4]"
1) This seems like an excessive use of commas that breaks the flow of the prose. 2) If both of the aforementioned copies are low-quality then I don't think you need to emphasis the relative qualities of the three. 3) Per WP:REALTIME we should avoid references to today. Consider: "Although its whereabouts are unknown, a third copy has been documented in historical records", or similar.
Discovery
  • "By the 20th century the Streatham portrait was owned by a family in Streatham, London"
I noticed that, for the most part, you use commas after introductory phrases, but not always. They are optional, but their usage should be consistent throughout the article.
  • I don't think I've ever seen a comma following "By x", but reworked to avoid the question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Starkey was more reserved, arguing that "there isn't that over-the-top quality you get with royal portraits of the period"
You should not introduce a direct quote with t subordinating conjunction.
  • As noted above, there is dissent among style guides whether or not to do so. Removed here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dendrochronological analysis was later undertaken, which dated the panel to c. 1593"
This is already stated in Production and early history: "dendrochronology dates its wood panel to c. 1593."
  • Removed the date, as it is mentioned above, but the dendrochronology should still be mentioned, as this paragraph is about the testing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foley visited the owner, hoping "to go shut the fellow up",[10] but upon seeing the work on an easel in the attic he "knew it was right" for the period."
Are these direct quotations from Foley or Zarin? Since its not at all clear, and "go shut the fellow up" is a complete sentence, you should provide in-line attribution.
  • "Go shut to fellow up" is a clause, not a sentence. It is lacking a subject. Both are from Foley, neither require explicit attribution to Foley under the current MOS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fellow" is the object. "Go" is an active verb, and requires the subject to be in front of the word "go". "He went to shut the fellow up", for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The identity of the sitter was debated after the panel's discovery."
Again, while I don't doubt that the term sitter is appropriate, I can't help but feel that its a bit jargon-esque, or that it would confuse a casual reader.
  • "Sitter" and "subject" are both appropriate terms when it comes to writing about portraits, sitter rather more specific. The term is used in recent FAs such as Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents. A little bit of jargon is inescapable in an article like this, and "sitter" is downright reader friendly compared to some of the other terms used in this article (which are linked). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foley found that there were at least four Jane Grey's among the English nobility at the time of the portrait, but owing to "the ages and marital status of the other candidates", Lady Jane Grey was the only viable choice, the others being too young, already married and using a different surname, or having lost their title."
This is wordy, IMO. Consider spitting these six clauses into two sentences.
  • "Starkey was more reserved, arguing that "there isn't that over-the-top quality you get with royal portraits of the period, where the sitters look as though they've just come back from Asprey."
Will the casual reader know what "look[ing] as though they've just come back from Asprey" means? It seems like an inside comment that will not make sense to many readers.
  • Hence the link. If I were to add that it was a British jewellery shop, you'd claim I'm adding OR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while there was no documentation of Jane ever owning jewellery like that worn by the portrait's subject."
What does this mean? Was she a frugal royal who didn't own expensive jewellery, or does this mean that the specific items cannot be traced to Jane?
  • The specific items. Reworked.
National Portrait Gallery
  • "The Streatham portrait bears the accession number of NPG 6804, and is considered part of the gallery's primary collection."
There is a comma separating the two verbs in a comound predicate; omit.
  • " Since early 2013 it has hung in Room 2 of the Montacute House in Somerset as part of an exhibition of Tudor-era portraits."
I noticed that, for the most part, you use commas after introductory phrases, but not always. They are optional, but their usage should be consistent throughout the article.
  • "After the March 2007 exhibition, Lost Faces when the miniature was displayed after a recent resurgence of interest in the Nine Days' Queen, Foley published a lengthy letter challenging Starkey's judgement, citing the brooch and emblem."
Maybe its just me, but this is jarring and confusing. 1) What does "the brooch and emblem" have to do with anything? I assume you mean that Foley used those items as evidence of authenticity, but this is not made clear by the prose. 2) Should Lost Faces be set-off with commas, because its making the long and awkward sentence difficult to parse.
  • "and is considered part of the gallery's primary collection"
I expected to be to follow considered, which trasitions rather awkwardly into "part of the gallery's". Consider: "and is regarded as part of the gallery's primary collection", or similar.

- GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gabe, I want to thank you (again) for the thorough review and apologize if I came across as attacking you, the person. It appears, to me at least, that there was a miscommunication between the two of us which led to the lengthy debate above. The end result, however, is clear to me: the entire paragraph is supported by the sources now, which is what really matters. Although I may disagree with you on a few points above (such as the examples), I hope you understand why I've taken such a stance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, Crisco. I admit that I'm not always the greatest communicator, but I'm often misunderstood for reasons that are not my doing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article is well-written, well-researched, and comprehensive. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to reviewers: The majority of the sources can be accessed here, though some do not have the page numbers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • It should be possible to use upright in the infobox; sample to be played with if desired
  • Alt text is not required, but if used it should not duplicate the caption
  • Licensing is all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nikki. I'm adding ALT text, and have reinserted your workaround. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Have been watching this develop for a few weeks and its now a very nice, well written, well sourced, concise and to the point article. There is a great story behind this painting and its brought out well here. More please. Ceoil (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I peer reviewed, had my few quibbles thoroughly dealt with, and I think the article meets all the FA criteria. It can't have been easy to get the balance right, with fiercely conflicting experts, including the formidable Dr Starkey, having their say, but the nominator has pulled it off convincingly. Top notch stuff. – Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've been watching this too, I think since before the PR, and any quibbles I had were nicely taken care of along the way. It's a really interesting article about the portrait of a woman who lost her head. Well done, Crisco! Victoria (tk) 00:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning support: I missed the PR, but this is an interesting little article. For what it's worth, I lived for a time within walking distance of the house in which Lady Jane Grey grew up. A strange, rather desolate place these days, but worth seeing! Just a few nitpicks here, although I can't say I'm quite convinced by the arguments of the experts in this article. Happy to support once these points are addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”Jane was a devout Protestant in line for the throne”: Do we need to say that she was in line for the throne when the preceding paragraph states that she was briefly queen?
  • ”Jane was a devout Protestant in line for the throne during … Known for her devoutness and education”: Devout … devout
  • ”she was in correspondence with Protestant leaders in Continental Europe”: Maybe “she corresponded with…”
  • ”Some that had been identified as her were later considered to be of other sitters”: This phrase lacks a certain elegance. Maybe “Academics have concluded that other paintings originally identified as Jane are in fact depictions of others; one example, a portrait now believed to be Catherine Parr [do we need the phrase identifying her “the last of the six wives of Henry VIII”?], was identified as Lady Jane Grey until 1996.” Or something like that.
  • I prefer we keep the phrase about who Parr was, for non British readers. Not 100% necessary, I agree, but it is helpful. Regarding your suggested wording, it would be inaccurate: the Parr portrait used as an example was identified as Parr, Jane, Parr. I've tried reworking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”She wears numerous pieces of jewellery, including a necklace finished with medallions and pearls; indicating a person of high social and economic status, which is reinforced by the silk and velvet of her gown.”: I’m not sure the semi-colon makes sense here.
  • ”A third copy is known through records, although its whereabouts are unknown.”: I can see why this is mentioned here, but is this not the same portrait mentioned in the earlier section? Does it need mentioning twice? If it is a different lost picture, maybe make that clearer.
  • No, sources do not indicate that the two are the same (if people had trouble believing this was of Jane because of its shortcomings, I am quite certain they would not believe another portrait, of lesser quality, was painted during Jane's lifetime). I'm not sure of a good way to make it explicit that this and the painting in the 1590 records are not the same without a clunky footnote. Suggestions welcome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Damage to the painting's mouth and eyes suggests that, at one time, it was vandalised, possibly by a Catholic partisan”: I think “at one time” is redundant here, particularly as the next part of the sentence tentatively dates the damage.
  • ”Owing to the painting's crudeness, Foley suggests that it was hurriedly completed for Jane's family from an original that "had to be destroyed because it would have been too dangerous to own once Mary became queen””: This seems a little strange. Why would they want a copy if the original had to be destroyed? Surely having a copy was as dangerous as having that original, so why destroy it in the first place? (This is a criticism of Foley’s idea, not the writing of this article!)
  • The source does not go into more detail on this (sadly). I dare not speculate, as I am singularly unqualified to do so. Do you think it worth removing altogether? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect it is a load of old rubbish, but as he's an expert, we'd better leave it in. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”They had long believed the portrait was of Jane”: Perhaps “They had long believed the portrait to be Jane…”?
  • It feels awkward to me to say a painting was a person, rather than painting of a person. I understand this is common in BrE, but I think the wording here is also acceptable (though perhaps clunky) in BrE. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Lady Jane Grey was the only viable choice; the others were too young, already married and using a different surname, or had lost their title.”: Again I’m spotting some odd logic from these experts. If the painting was of her, it was from 40 years after her death. If it was a copy, there is no way to date the original. So how can the age of the sitter have any relevance? They were too young when? In 1590? But LJG was long dead by then, so by the same logic, it couldn’t have been her!!!
  • Rather like that argument. To hedge, however, the source does not state "1550s", but "the period", which is conveniently indistinct enough that it could be argued to be the 16th century, or the mid-16th century, or something else. Also, the costume is also useful for dating the painting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”after a recent resurgence of interest in the Nine Days' Queen”: Someone unfamiliar may be wondering who this “Nine Days’ Queen” was! Maybe state that she was known as this in the section on her life. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think I see an opportune moment to add that information, so I've substituted Jane. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Everything looking good now, happy to switch to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Lost Faces: a bit confused by the formatting here - is Grosvenor the editor and the others listed authors?
  • Source has "Catalog entries by David Starkey, Philip Mould, Bendor Grosvenor, and Alasdair Hawkyard." I have removed the (ed.) note. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mitchell: the link provided shows different publisher and location - can you verify?
  • I'm going with WorldCat, which appears to be basing the publisher on the back cover. Associated University Presses (used by Google) is listed on page 4. I think I trust the back cover/WorldCat more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 6 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Streatham_portrait/archive1&oldid=1086353045"