Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Streatham portrait

Streatham portrait edit

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 12, 2015 by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Streatham" portrait is an oil painting on panel from the 1590s believed to be a copy of a portrait of Lady Jane Grey dating to her lifetime (c. 1537–54). It shows a three-quarter-length depiction of a young woman in Tudor-period dress holding a prayer book, with the faded inscription "Lady Jayne" or "Lady Iayne" in the upper-left corner. Thought to have been completed as part of a set of paintings of Protestant martyrs, it is in poor condition and damaged, as if it has been attacked. By the early 20th century it was in the possession of a collector in Streatham, London. In December 2005 the portrait was examined by the art dealer Christopher Foley. He saw it as an accurate, though poorly executed, reproduction of a contemporary painting of Jane, had it verified, and on that basis negotiated its sale. The work was acquired by the National Portrait Gallery in London for a rumoured £100,000, a sale of which the historian David Starkey was highly critical, challenging Foley's identifications. As of 2015 it is on display in Room 3 of the National Portrait Gallery. Although of historical interest, the painting is generally considered to be of poor artistic quality. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): Three Beauties of the Present Day (29 December 2014)
Main editors: Crisco 1492
Promoted: March 8, 2014
Reasons for nomination: Good article on a date-relevant subject (12 February will be the 561st anniversary of Jane's execution). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great article and perfect for the FP. - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks good; I made a minor change. Crisco, do you have access to Ives (pp. 36, 299) or de Lisle (pp. 5–8)? Some of the changes I like to make for the Main Page to improve readability are: fewer numbers, fewer unusual formats, and less uncertainty ... and we could tick all 3 boxes by changing "1536/1537–1554" to "c. 1537–1554", or even to "1537–1554", if the preponderance of sources still use the 1537 date.

I don't mind the c. for the main page, Even though Ives (p. 36) agrees with 1537 (can't access those pages in de Lisle), I'd play it safe and avoid a plain 1537; keeps us consistent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]