Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article is short, but Ive kind of exhausted the sources. A moving and unflinching c 1490 diptych by Albrecht Dürer. Ceoil (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD
The diptych seems to be a study of the effect of aging on the human face, and it seems he was trying to evoke pity for two people who had had very difficult lives. So I suspect Dürer was waiting until his mother's woes weighed more heavily on her face. I'll try and explain this better on the page. Ceoil (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Description
Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara Holper
I'm inclinded against blockquote, just a preferance. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lost diptych
Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no source actually says who that is, but this is a good catch. I need to dig more into this. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
General
There is; I'm waiting on a substantial book [1] that might add some bit more on this. Thanks for the comments, working through. 16:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
Lede
  • " on human physiognomy" consider omitting. We all know what aging is.
Description
  • The lede says he was 19. Here you are suggesting he is 18.
  • The passage about the father's birthplace might well be consigned to a footnote.
  • "its meaning and significance is lost.' are lost. But is it really worth going with both words?
  • "portrait of an emaciated woman" suggest "gaunt woman" due to emaciated in a quote coming up.
  • "as is the pose given by her son " I'd toss "she is" before "given"
Sources
  • "influenced by a van Eyck's 1438 (probable) " there's obviously an issue here but I'm not confident enough to clean it up
  • You may be asked at some stage to provide sources for some of the footnoted material.

That's really all I have. Very accessible and well-written.Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these Wehwalt. Responding. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]