Wikipedia:Peer review/Portrait of a Woman (Rogier van der Weyden, Washington)/archive1

Portrait of a Woman (Rogier van der Weyden, Washington)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
c 1460 painting. I would like some direction and detached input.

Any feedback appreciated, Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: The peer review link on the article's talkpage has not been activated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian, I move the article after making the PR request. Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article looks carefully researched, and is deeply interesting, gently instructive rather than didactic. I haven't finished reading it yet, but thought you should have my comments (mostly nitpicks) on the Description section. I have added a further note on image captions.

• Description section
  • "...other works by Rogiers..." Why the "s"?

    - Done Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • "quite self-possession" should probably be "quiet self-possession"

    - Done Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Last sentence, first paragraph, not cited.
  • Unnecessary use of commas: "The woman wears an elegant, low-cut, black dress..."

    - Done Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • "...the then-fashionable Burgundian style, which emphasise..." Must be "emphasises", since "style" is singular.

    - Right. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I'd have thought "veil" was an unnecessary link, as a familiar word.

    - Yeah, removed. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Lorne Campbell would be better described as an art historian than as a "writer". Could be redlinked?

    - I can do up a stub in a day or two. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • "this position is likely an artistic device used to continue the flow of the diagonal line of the veil's inner-right wing." Uncited statement.
  • "Rogier often indicated the social position of his models through his rendering of their face and hands." A brief explanation of the relevance of this statement to this painting would be useful.
  • "Her eyes gaze downward in humility, contrasts with her relatively extravagant clothes." Grammar wrong; perhaps "in contrast to". Also, "humility" is a common word not needing a link. Ditto "piety" in the next sentence

    - Done Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • "...some art historians have speculated." In this usage, "speculated" is transitive and needs an object clause. "Conjectured" would do, however. (Sorry to be a pedant, but the intransitive form of "speculated" has a different meaning, i.e. gambled)

    - No worries! Done Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Image captions: These tend to be very long and detailed. MOS, through WP:Captions, says: "More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting", and I certainly found this to be the case here. Some of your captions are more like mini-essays—should I be reading these before the section text, during or after? The diversion of attention was vexing, and I suggest that you try to make your captions more succinct, perhaps by transferring essential text from the captions to the main text.

I will look forward to reading and commenting on the rest of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian, thank you for these observations, look forward to responding. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ham comments: This is a very good article, and I only have a few comments:

• The Art Manual of Style (which is only for guidance) discourages this sort of title: "If the title is not very specific, or refers to a common subject, add the surname of the artist in brackets afterwards". As this isn't the only Portrait of a Woman by Rogier I would suggest Portrait of a Woman (Rogier van der Weyden, c. 1460) or Portrait of a Woman (Rogier van der Weyden, Washington). VAMOS says nothing on disambiguation by date (an omission it might be good to address...), but I would think it easier for a knowledgeable person to identify the painting from the location than from the date.

  Note the now blue link. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The painting was not titled by Rogier..." Would it be anachronistic to assume that paintings were usually given a title by their artists at this time? I'm thinking of the Arnolfini Portrait et al.

  Have clarified in the notes. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The identity of the sitter is unknown, although some art historians have conjectured." You've already said that her identity is unknown in the lead, so might Some art historians have speculated about the identity of the sitter be better? (Sorry to change Ceoil's wording, but it is then in the intransitive, and I'm not sure how you'd put it with conjectured.)

  Reworded. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• "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." Would it be better to introduce the workshop painting, compare the two (citing the 1986 source), then add at the end (as the least important fact) that the paintings were very briefly hung together (with a source from the 2000s), where this comparison could be made by visitors? Perhaps the painting could also be moved down from its current position to the Gallery, closer to the text where it is discussed?

Yeah, that will probably be the route I'll go with. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Other than that, keep up the good work! Ham 12:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ham. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with Portrait of a Woman (Rogier van der Weyden, Washington) myself, especially as the date is approximate & views might differ, but the location won't change. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)