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

Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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

I don't understand the point about waiting a year or two until she looked older.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Barbara's -> Holper's.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Description

~~"In contrast to Albrecht's panel" -> "In contrast to the Elder's panel" or "In contrast to the the father's panel"~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara Holper

Use a blockquote for the long quote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclinded against blockquote, just a preferance. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lost diptych

~~You don't need to fully name and link Fedja Anzelewsky again. Last name is sufficient here.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imhoff inventory? Who is Imhoff?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 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

Is there any critical commentary on this diptych?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]