Wikipedia:Peer review/Streatham portrait/archive1

Streatham portrait

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to try and bring it to FA class, and (aside from the standard grammar clean up) I would like some input on the article as an article about a portrait, as I generally don't write about that subject.

Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

A few small points

Lead
- "by a Streatham, London, collector" – bumpy prose. Perhaps "by a collector in Streatham, London
  - Done! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Description
- "which is only reinforced" – I'd lose the "only" – ambiguous
  - Agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
National Portrait Gallery
- Image caption: "The miniature Starkey" conjures up an odd vision of a midget historian. I think for once the passive voice might be better: "The miniature credited by Starkey"
  - Agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "problem is — is it because" – is that an em dash (looks even bigger)? if so it shouldn't have spaces either side of it, I believe, according to the MoS.
  - Should be an endash now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "in early 2013 it was hung at Montacute House in Somerset as part of an exhibition" – is it still there or back at the NPG?
  - Will use PKM's source below. Looks like it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If, as appears, the article is in BrEng it could do with a tweak or two, which I should be pleased to do if you would like me to. – Tim riley (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. Anyone who says this should be in American English should be hung by their thumbs (oops, did I say that?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Duly twuck. Tim riley (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PKM

"Some which had been identified as her were later considered to be of other sitters, such as one of Catherine Parr, the last of the six wives of King Henry VIII, which was identified as Lady Jane Grey until 1996" - I think this needs a footnote.
- I have written the following footnote, although I'm still waiting on a more reliable reproduction of the source before I put it in article space. "The full-length portrait, credited to Master John, had been acquired by the National Portrait Gallery in the mid-1960s. Though traditionally considered a portrait of Catherine Parr, the gallery's director Sir Roy Strong relabeled it as being of Jane, based in part on comparisons with a later engraving. In 1996, following the discovery of jewellery inventories which confirmed the broach in the portrait had been owned by Parr, the gallery labeled the portrait as one of her." Prose subject to change, of course.
  - I've updated that image with a better one, but I've been looking for a really high-res version or a scannable image for years with no luck. Still, it's better than it was. - PKM (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subject - I'd identify her descent from Henry VII as through his younger daughter Mary through her second marriage, and identify and link Jane's father where you mention him Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk.

Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montacute House - NPG shows the painting as currently in Room 2 at Montacute House, so you might change "as part of an exhibition" to "with other Tudor-era portraits in the National collection, where it remains" or similar, and footnote [1].
- Thanks for the review and link! (Apparently I missed that in the side-bar). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google-fu, at your service. - PKM (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the minutiae of the art world, and the requirements of our art articles, so the following is based on the prose only. I've made a couple of minor copy edits: feel free to revert those you don't like or disagree with.

Lead

Is it worth putting Jane's dates in brackets after her name—it would help with the "dating to her lifetime" part of the sentence;

Good idea. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the two quotes be attributed?

As they are just phrases, and not whole sentences, I don't think the MOS requires it. "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." (MOS:QUOTE)

The lead says the portrait is displayed at Montacute House: the IB says the NPG and the location is London. Even if the NPG is made the owner (rather than the museum field) the location is still wrong. I suspect this needs IB tweaking, rather than re-writing the lead.

I don't know who merged the two parameters. "Museum", to me, says the institution which owns the painting. "City" does not necessarily mean where it is displayed. I've fixed, though I'm not adverse to losing the ibox. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subject

"After the king's death": Henry or Edward? - Edward VI. How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather nicely put together and provides, to my untutored eye, a good description of the subject. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]