Wikipedia:Peer review/Nativity (Christus)/archive1

Nativity (Christus)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in hopes I might get it done in time for Christmas for a TFA run and a PR seems like a good place to begin to work out potential problems before taking it to FAC. It's been a difficult article to write. Thanks in advance. Victoria (tk) 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SlimVirgin

The writing is excellent, it flows nicely, the images look great (nice size), and it's a joy to read.

Lead

• "The Nativity is an oil-on-wood Early Netherlandish painting panel painting by Petrus Christus ..."

• Better as "an oil-on-wood early Netherlandish panel painting," or "an early Netherlandish oil-on-wood panel painting"?

Yes, thanks for the fix. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Description

• Joel Upton isn't linked, so should we say who/what he is?
• "which is described as having "no counterpoint in previous art": which X describes as ...?

I've identified Upton. The second person seems to be a professor, but haven't dug enough yet. It's a big claim and so, yes, I agree it should be properly attributed. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

All done now with these. Victoria (tk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Will continue later. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Iconography

• "Christus's membership in the Confraternity of the Dry Tree, which he joined in 1462": the source (Sterling 1971, p. 19) says it's not known when Christus joined, just that he and his wife are listed as members in 1462.
• "Adam's third son Seth whose quest" --> Adam's third son, Seth, whose quest"
• Burning bush --> burning bush

All fixed. I added a note about his membership in the Confraternity. Hopefully it's helpful. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Composition

• Say who Lawrence Steefel is?
• Holy Family: upper case or lower case ("space inhabited by the Holy Family" and "They also function to surround the holy family").

Fixed these. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Dating and condition

• "Furthermore, the softer facial types utilized in the Nativity are typical of Christus's later work, suggest a date in the least later than 1450 and 1455." Needs to be tweaked to "and suggest a date," or "the softer facial types utilized in the Nativity and typical of Christus's later work, suggest a date ..."
• "Bouts and van der Weyden 'merely expand the narrative' in their use of ...": I would say who is being quoted.

Thanks for these catches. Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Provenance

• Minor thing, but I wouldn't link Berlin and Madrid, or if they're linked, link Washington too.
• I was a little confused when I read the last paragraph about how it came to Spain, in particular why that should be such an issue.

Still working out the last paragraph. I might be on thin ice and am trying to decide whether to remove it. We don't know who commissioned the painting, I got a little interested when I realized it came out of Spain at about the time of the Spanish Civil War, tried to dig to see what I could find, but found very little. I've strung together what I have found - he might have worked in Spain or Italy, about a third of his paintings have come from Spain or Italy, but then again we do know he had foreign patrons in Bruges so maybe they were commissioned there. If this seems too much of a digression to you (or anyone else) then I can trim it out. I'm on the fence about it. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've found a little more information and have fleshed this out. I've decided it's worth keeping - 1930 was an interesting period in terms of buying art, moving it out of Europe, lining up buyers, etc. Victoria (tk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

• "To avoid export taxes, and, because it was becoming more difficult to send European paintings to America, the Duveens chose ..." I would remove some commas: "To avoid export taxes and because it was becoming ..."
• But perhaps simplify it further. The source says that it was becoming harder to remove paintings from Europe, but this one was sent by that route only to avoid the tax. So perhaps try something like: "To avoid the export fee payable had the painting been sent directly to New York, the Duveens chose a circuitous route – from Madrid to Germany, then to Paris and on to America." Otherwise the circuitous route is a bit puzzling.
• Next paragraph: "At least eight of Christus's paintings" → "At least eight of his paintings" to avoid the repetition from the previous sentence.
• "have come from either Italy or Spain.[44] giving credence": comma after Spain
• "giving credence to speculation he spent a period of time Italy or Spain" → "giving credence to speculation that he spent time in Italy or Spain."
• I would remove the comma after yet in the final sentence.

The section reads much better after your additions. It's a nice way to finish the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin for the suggested wording, which I've used. That section went in a bit quickly. I'll probably tweak a bit more this weekend after re-reading the sources. Victoria (tk) 23:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Images

I've played around with different window sizes and browsers, and the image placement and size looks good every time. The only odd thing is that, in one of the browsers, File:Petrus christus, natività di washington 03.jpg in the gallery is a different size from the other three images. But I can't see any reason for that in edit mode.

I've unpacked the gallery. For some reason I'm seeing it display at different sizes every time I load the page. Can't figure out why it's doing that or how to fix. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

All in all, a wonderful article, and an excellent idea for TFA at Christmas. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks so much for reading and for these comments - they're very helpful. I'd like to spend some time re-reading sources for a couple of points, in particular the bit about Spain. I seem to have lost my train of thought there! At any rate, I'll get to it in a few days and thanks again. Victoria (tk) 00:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Best of luck with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Belle

• The scene of the nativity traditionally takes place in a stable not a shed and since there are horses stabled behind Mary (who, btw, seems to have just chucked Jesus on the floor) is there any reason for saying shed?

I think I've clarified this. St Bridget's vision was that the birth took place in a cave; in northern art of this period instead of a cave it's shown in a shed or hut. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no contradiction between a building being a stable (function) and a shed (type of construction), and no reason not to use the word. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, but the exclusion of stable seemed a bit weird. The story of the nativity is a little less romantic when the innkeeper tells them they can sleep in the shed ("but move the garden furniture and my bike out of the way and be careful not to knock over the creosote") Belle (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, we could have "stable, depicted as a wooden shed within a ruined stone building" or something - the ruin symbolizes the Jewish religion, as no doubt some sources say, as well as the ciborium mentioned below. The present text doesn't quite say that the doorway and the wall at rear are intended as parts of the same building - surely the case, and some sources must cover this. Btw, Ainsworth, Maryan W. (1994). Petrus Christus: Renaissance master of Bruges. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. ISBN 9780870996948. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) - is fully online from the MMA. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• "annunciation" for announcement is archaic unless referring to "The Annunciation" (which you aren't here); and if it is before the announcement of the birth to the shepherds, how come they are leaning in at the back? ("What's going on in there? Did you just throw that baby on the floor? Need any wool? Got anything to tell us, you angels? Lovely cut of lamb there for you; 3 shekels."). Two of the shepherds look like they are lighting a bong, but I don't suppose that's very likely.

Tried to clarify. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

"Annunciation to the Shepherds" is the technical term in art history for their scene, & there are a number of other Biblical "annunciations" in art history - see Annunciation (disambiguation) for some - though this is rather technical vocabulary. As for "these shepherds are emotionless and unaware of the miracle unfolding before them, which implies the scene occurs before the Annunciation to the shepherds", personally I think this is most unlikely to be the artist's intention, and Upton is over-elaborating. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've rolled it back, [1]. The link to the Annunciation to the shepherds probably does the job. I think what Belle is asking, and what I've wondered myself, is how do we know it's before the annunciation (which all the sources say) and I found Upton's explanation vaguely interesting. Victoria (tk) 23:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• In 1930 Max Friedländer attributed Christus, remarking that "in scope and importance, [it] is superior to all other known creations of this master." What does that mean? I can't understand it without more context and it doesn't seem to be mentioned again in the rest of the article.

Removed. Seemed interesting when I read it, but it doesn't fit where it is. Thanks for noting. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• "When Adam delved and Eve spun" Why quote John Ball here? The image does look quite fitting as Adam is delving and Eve spinning, but did Christus base it on Ball's speech?

Dunno. Maybe Johnbod does; added here. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No of course he is not using Ball, but Ball is the familiar expression in English of the traditional medieval roles assigned to A&E post-Expulsion, also used in the painting, and most other medieval depictions. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought straight description would be better here to prevent those like me imagining some non-existent connection to Ball and those that don't know Ball wondering what it means. Belle (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

One might expand it, but I think Ball is very apposite and well known. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• What is the "(top)" doing in the list of scenes on the arch? And the last scene isn't from Genesis. (God looks very boring as he banishes Cain; it's like he's been woken up while having a nap after dinner; is there anything on this mundane representation of God without halos or crowns or angels or general god-paraphernalia?)

Same as above. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Top explains that this is the top of the arch. The last scene is from Genesis 4 on the primary & more likely explanation of what it shows. In this sort of context, and limited space, a simple depiction of God is not that unusual, as in this for example. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the "(top)" is unnecessary as we are already going from left to right. Belle (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, but personally I think the difficulty many people have in relating prose to images should never be underestimated. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• The two uppermost reliefs on the arch, which have a central focus and function as keystones, bring attention to the juxtaposition of Old and New Testament themes. The reliefs also function as a temporal device, leading the viewer directly to the moment of Christ's birth and mankind's redemption, which occurs below in the shed." Isn't the juxtaposition of OT and NT made by the fact that they point down to Jesus (so they aren't "also" functioning as a temporal device, because that's what they are doing in the first sentence). If you can work out what I'm trying to say there you get 10 bonus points.

I think it's slightly different in that the left scene shows sacrfice (NT), the right sin = punishment (OT), *and* they point from the OT world to the new below. Hard to explain; I've tried to clarify. Let me know if it's any better. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sacrifice is pretty popular in the OT too. Belle (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll put more in above when I get round to it (how casual of me; like I'm the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and can't find time for Wikipedia. Cancel my one o'clock and get me Morrison on the line; I don't care if he's showing investors round the new site in Dubai, I need answers before the markets open, etc.). Belle (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I thought it was an ox, but it's hardly mentioned in the sources (if at all) for some odd reason. I think the shed is from St. Bridget's version, but I'm answering before I've had another look through the sources; I've wondered about that too. I've also thought it odd that the shepherds just happen to be loitering but are unaware - I have difficulty explaining that they see an infant, but aren't aware they're in the presence of Christ. Will give it another go. Good catch, btw. And thanks for looking. Victoria (tk) 23:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Johnbod and Belle and sorry for not responding earlier. I've been slammed at work, haven't been feeling well, and had zero time to back get here. I've decided to let the PR close because I'm not sure I'll have the time/energy to get this through FAC for Christmas. In the meantime, while I'm here, a few responses:

• Re: shed - I think that's sorted, but when I can get back to editing will have another look. I think of a stable or barn as larger and less broken down.
• Re: John Ball - maybe it was just fatigue but I'd forgotten he was the person who made that speech during the Peasant's Revolt. Anyway, I'm thinking about the point, and want to check the sources. That language is in Hand but is not used so specifically in the other sources.
• Re: "top" - I'm on the fence. BUT - my big concern is that since I started the page a year ago or so I've moved the descriptions of the Old Testament reliefs a number of times. In the end I took them out of the iconography section and decided to fully describe the reliefs in the "Description" section. I've honestly not read through fully in weeks so couldn't say right now if there's repetition or not, but my preference is to avoid it. When I get time, a chance, back to editing, I'll have a look.
• Re: Ainsworth - yes, thanks JB for pointing me to her book. It's being used (I've had it for a fairly long time) and I think I've scraped most of what exists of other sources off Jstor and the various other places. I would like to get Charles de Tolnay's book (a lot of the others mention him), and Panofsky who suggested the last relief was of Seth, and is disputed by others. But I haven't been able to get either. Probably with more time I could find and have sent in from a distant library and I suppose that's as good as an argument as any for holding off. Thanks again to both of you and to SlimVirgin for taking the time to read and review. Feel free to keep commenting until the review closes. It's been extremely helpful and certainly pointed to some weak spots and holes in the article. Victoria (tk) 12:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• support' I think at FA standard, even if some points may want touches. I have made a few edits. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)