Talk:Virgin of Vladimir/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Johnbod (talk · contribs) 16:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Our Lady of Vladimir[a] is a medieval Byzantine icon of the Virgin and Child..." - it clearly should be grouped as such here, as other religious works of at are - not under "Philosophy and religion". It's a decent article, but I don't think this has enough on the art history yet.

There are other problems - several obvious links are missing in the lead alone. The lead says: "Despite near destruction several times over, the work has been fully restored and remade." - can't see any more on this in the main sections. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: (A) I have some sources that discuss the works on its artistic merits (Rice, Funk & Wagnalls, etc.). I could split the "Description and reverence" section into two subsections and expand both. Would that work?
(B) Lead has been changed now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Those aren't really enough - one a review, the other a family encyclopedia. There's a ton of stuff listed in the article already, and no doubt plenty more available. It needs a fair amount of work I think. Nb it is currently classed as "start" class (ok, "C" would be fair), and start to GA is a big jump. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If I had access to this, I'd be set right now. I'm trying to get this qualified for a triple DYK nomination. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Give me a thing that needs to be added or changed, and I'll get it done. I'm pretty determined to right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really work like that, but I gave you one above, to get going on. The idea is you produce a GA standard article, and I review it. Btw, when searching, "Virgin of Vladimir" etc will produce as much - or Theotokos. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Any better right now? I just expanded it with a bunch of new sources.^[1] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Question. @Barkeep49: I know we've spoken about this GAN on WP:Discord in general, but I have a question for you. John hasn't answered my question yet is active right now. Is there something I'm supposed to do? I'm arriving at the beach in like 8 minutes, so I am not going to be available for the next few hours. It's just this is a real time sensitive GAN per Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not time sensitive at all, or not on that scale - the DYK appearance is probably a month away at least, and can be delayed for longer than that. You apparently don't realize this, but getting picked up for review from GAN almost immediately is highly unusual, & only happened because the page was on my watchlist. Frankly, that article looks more like a GA than this one, as the subject is limited, where as this is an exceptionally well-known painting. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Well as I said on discord I don't like to get involved on wiki in tool use or discussions except what I naturally come across while doing my on wiki work. But since I was pinged and am now here I'll offer my thoughts. First, John is right that while this is time sensitive it's not necessarily urgent. As noted at GA reviews can take a week. I also agree with Johns idea that this is lacking in some necessary breadth (GA Criteria 3a). However, I do have sympathy that there hasn't been a full GA review done yet. Hopefully John will have time to do so soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, I don't want to make it sound like I don't appreciate you reviewing this. I'm just paranoid because this is literally my first GAN, and I haven't a clue as to what you desire to be changed for this (in your view) to meet the criteria for GA. To me, this met the breadth requirement per this note and WP:GANOT. If there is some important information you feel this article is missing, I would really like to know what it is. Between the "Origins" section and "As an artistic work" subsection, I've nearly exhausted all art history I can source to English-language WP:RS for which I have access. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Turns out I have one more thought. Johnbod given that XTools says you're the third most prolific editor in terms of both number of edits and bytes added, I wanted to confirm that you feel you qualify as a reviewer per WP:GAI as someone who "Not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think so - all I did was 2 hours worth 6 years ago, mostly adding some sources, & leaving 1,730 characters in the current version. But if either of you feel differently, let me know. Johnbod (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• This "Matakieva, Teofana (1982). The Icon. Translated by Weitzmann, Kurt. London: Evans Brothers Ltd. ISBN 0237456451." is all wrong btw (that's you, it was correct before). She is the translator, I'd imagine, Kurt Weitzmann the author. Johnbod (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Johnbod: OpenLibrary says that the book is just a translation of Le Icon. Worldcat says the same thing. I'm still pretty confident that she wrote the original book, but if you still have the book then please do inform me if it's otherwise. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You'll notice both of those links call Weitzmann the author, and neither mentions "Matakieva, Teofana" at all. I have the book in front of me. Weitzmann is the first listed author, and wrote 3 of the 8 sections, including the ones cited here. Six other authors are named, but I can't see "Matakieva, Teofana" anywhere at all (even in the small print thanks). The book was first published in Italian the year before, though I imagine Weitzmann had written it in English. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: This has now been fixed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This may be secondary to breadth and sourcing issues mentioned by Johnbod but I'll note that the article writing is poor enough to affect clarity and accuracy. For example, the current lede itself has numerous issues of poor sentence ordering, wordiness, incorrect qualifiers, and at least one glaring factual error. MJL, could you take a stab at proofreading it carefully? I would suggest approaching WP:GOCE but it would be premature to do so till the article content is nailed down. Abecedare (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Abecedare: How is this? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  @MJL: Thanks for the try but, frankly, not an improvement. I have now read the whole article and it was painful; it needs a complete reorganization and rewrite even to make sense of the current contents. Sorry to be blunt but (even though I am not the GA reviewer) I don't think it wold be useful to pretend that this is possibly on the verge of a GA pass. Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  Give me half an hour and I'll point out some specific issues because, re-reading my above comments I realize that it is hard to decipher their basis. Abecedare (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Abecedare: Please do! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, here goes and remember that these are just random examples of problems with the current version:

• From the lede: lets focus on these two sentences It is traditionally said the icon did not leave the city until 1935 where it was brought to protect Moscow from its Mongol invaders, but the historical accuracy of this claim is uncertain. By at least the sixteenth century, the icon was relocated to the Dormition Cathedral in Moscow as accounts of this story became widespread.
  • Was Moscow really at risk of Mongol invasion in 1935? Why do we have to rely on "tradition" for such (relatively) recent history? How does the first sentence square with the second? What is "this story" mentioned in the second sentence?
• Or, take this sentence Despite near destruction in the thirteenth century, the work has been fully restored at least five times since then.
  • Why "despite"? Would restoration even be required without the destruction (damage?)? The qualifier is similarly misused later in the article, in the sentence, Despite the icon's outsized significance as a religious icon, the artistic quality of the work has also won it praise. Another preposition that the article tends to misuse: throughout.
  • What does "fully" mean?
  • What precipitated the need for the other four restorations? Is this sentence consistent with and an accurate summary of the contents of the Origins section?
• Or take the first three sentences of that section: As a work of art, the icon is dated to the earlier part of the 12th century dated sometime shortly before its arrival in Rus around 1131. This is consistent with the account given in the chronicles. Similar to other high quality Byzantine works of art, it is thought to have been painted in Constantinople.
  • What purpose does "as a work of art" serve in the first sentence? Is the dating different if not considered as a work of art?
  • ...earlier part of the 12th century: earlier than what? (Ans: just say "early")
  • ...dated...dated...
  • Rus?!
  • Don't say "the chronicles" as if the reader is expected to know what you are referring to.
  • Similar to other... the sentence is a mess, perhaps as an attempt to avoid using "Like other...". Rewrite.
  • "...thought to have been painted in Constantinople? But in the lede that is stated as a fact (The icon was painted in Constantinople)
• I can go on sentence by sentence but instead I'll point out an organizational issue: The Origins section doesn't (only) talk about origins and the Legends section doesn't (only) talk about legends; for a glaring example, re-read the last paragraph of the latter section. Also better care needs to be taken throughout to distinguish between legends, tradition and history.
• And while I have focused on the writing, I'll mention that the coverage has holes obvious to even a non-specialist like me. For example, having read the whole article I remain ignorant of the base, materials, pigments etc used by the original creator and the various restorers. The first image caption does mention "tempera on panel" but the article text itself doesn't even go into that level of (essential!) detail.

To be clear, I am not expecting a point-by-point explanation or reply because, as I said above, these examples are just indicative of the problems that will need a substantial rewrite, re-organization and expansion of the article to resolve. Hope this is helpful, even if not pleasant to read. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, many of these prose issues are trivial, & I was hoping to sort the basic content out before addressing them. Content first & then prose/formatting etc is my usual approach when both need fixing. The new sources added during the review are generally not high-quality & I wonder if it is possible to do a GA using extra web sources only, which seems to be the plan. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh I agree that the prose issues are best handled at the end. I had initially thought of only mentioning the problem with the writing but then realized that, without examples, that can come cross as baseless name-calling. Despite my lengthy critique, MJL would be best advised to address such issues towards the end of the improvement process (except for possibly the 1935 howler). The article organization/sectioning issues, which I briefly alluded to, may however need to be given some though before then, simultaneous with a review of how the best available sources and comparable articles deal with the subject.

MJL: if you are stuck on how to proceed, start with a proper literature survey! Abecedare (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yup. I've noticed that Hamilton, George Heard, The Art and Architecture of Russia (Pelican History of Art), Yale University Press, revised 2nd edn. 1975 ISBN 0140560068 - my one, there must be a new edition now, has more on the icon than any other souce I added. That should be relatively easy to get hold of, as part of the Yale History of Art. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod and Abecedare: I'll be honest and say that this is starting to feel like the standards we hold WP:FA to rather than the overview of a WP:GA. This may be just the side effect of not having received the formal review I was expecting. Am I to expect this is the final bit of general criticism offered to the article in its current state? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Limiting myself to the aspects I commented upon: the standards I judged the writing by, as should be clear from my comments above, were those of clarity and grammar (ie GA standards), not sparkling, professional prose (FA standards). And while this is more Johnbod's area of expertise, as I briefly mentioned earlier, it is obvious to even me that the current article is missing coverage of essential aspects of the subject (again a GA requirement). Will leave the formal evaluation to John; feel free to ping me when the article content is finalized and I'll be happy to re-review, or even help with copyediting/polishing, the writing. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

(ec) "General criticism", perhaps yes. You have had a lot of points made, & if they are all acted on, we can move on to specific points, but as it is, in its current state, the article is essentially a fail, & so won't get a very detailed review. Apart from anything else, it's a waste of my time making detailed points on things that need to be redone anyway. I think you said this was your first GAN, & perhaps you've picked a trickier subject than you realized. If you look at some other GAs on individual paintings, like The Magpie (Monet), Symphony in White, No. 2: The Little White Girl, Bonaparte Crossing the Alps, Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash, Self-Portrait with Halo and Snake, The Rocky Mountains, Lander's Peak, or The Nightmare, I don't think the standard we are looking for is out of line. And none or these are nearly as famous (or as old) as this one. I accept there is probably some (too much) variability in what GA reviewers expect, but then on many subjects there isn't all that much that can really be said, which is not the case here. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Okay, if I understand you right, you require:
(1) Expanded coverage to include more art history,
(2) Grammatical corrections as to make it less wordy,
(3) Improved sourcing (specifically the book you mentioned),
(4) relabeling the headings,
(5) the points brought up by Abecedare, and
(6) specific points we aren't getting into now.

I can deliver for you point (1) if the book (3) has the level of coverage. However, this is assuming I am able to actually able to obtain the book (which is not a guarantee). Consider point (1) is a maybe. As for points (2) and (4), those are definitely doable. With point (3), I'll stand behind the sources as they exist now. I will make an attempt at locating this suggested reading material, but I'm not exactly prepared to drive down to New Haven and back at least twice to fetch it (to say the least). My search must end at the local public library because of my own monetary constraints. Point (5) contains critiques that I fundamentally disagree with. There are suggestions certainly worth pursuing, but I don't necessarily support further changes to the lead post-1935. It reads well enough imo. We'll cross the bridge to point (6) when we get to it.
Does this sound accurate and reasonable? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Taking these:

• 1) Yes
• 2) I don't think I've said this, but probably. There's quite a lot in the article that just isn't clear, or may be wrong. This is what you tend to get when piecing together a lot of references in not-very-detailed sources. For example, you've corrected 1935 to 1395, which is Timur, but describe him/his army as "Mongol invaders", which is not really how they are normally described - he "was a Turco-Mongol Persianate conqueror" according to our article.
• 3) Better sourcing, which is the key. I don't insist on Hamilton at all, but that is the best source I've found - after a fairly extensive search on your behalf. It's not at all a rare book, & I could get it through my public library, if only on an inter-library loan. Obviously I don't know about yours. I've looked (have you?) at the two MA theses online, & I must say I'm not seeing anything in their bibliographies that looks like the comprehensive art history source in English that one would expect for such a famous work. Every general world art history gives the work a sentence or two, or a paragraph, but Hamilton gives it a page & would fill the gap. I'm sure there are others, but I don't know what they are and, clearly, neither do you. We don't usually allow MA theses as WP:RS, but possibly they would be acceptable here, though unfortunately neither is much concerned with the art history.
• 4) I don't think I've said this, but yes.
• 5) Yes, essentially.
• 6) Yes.

Does that help? Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: That helps a lot, but I have news: I took the trip to the local library (it's the Cromwell Belden Public Library for reference). Pretty much, they did not have the book, nor any book about Russian art (), and the closest library which does have Hamilton is a 30 minutes drive away and not available through an interlibrary loan. I don't have the means to travel that far.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Btw, Amazon have a copy (in US) of the 2nd edn I could get shipped to the UK for a total cost of about $7, but I entirely understand if you don't want to do that. If you concentrate on the other points, we could see where we get to. I think it will be ok to use the Bakatkina thesis, which is online, as the fullest sdources all seem to be in Russian, which she evidently speaks. She has good detail on the restorations & the history, following Anisimov, whose monograph of the 1920s still seems the main source. He got shot for his troubles (p.23). I think that would be enough. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright, this will be done within at least 24 hours then. Thank you for your time so far! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The first edition of the Hamilton book is freely available at the internet archive: scanOCR. I also recommend the resource exchange project. Cheers, gnu57 02:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Some specific points

• Virgin of Vladimir should be a redirect, given in the lead. Personally I expect it is the WP:COMMONNAME in English, and should be the article title. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• ..."Bogolyubsky soon constructed the Dormition Cathedral" and then "To house the icon, the Assumption Cathedral was built," - these links go to the same article. You should make your mind up on the name. The cathedral article doesn't mention the icon btw.
• The article should make it clearer, especially in the lead but also lower down, that the Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi is within the museum compound - I think you have to cross a courtyard, or us the tunnel you mention, but on my only visit to the museum the church was closed. The church article could be clearer on this at places also.
• More later I expect. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Question for MJL: do you have any objections to me editing the articles myself instead of listing possible improvements here (which is both inefficient and possibly stressful for you)? Will defer to your preference on my mode of involvement, while the nomination is open. Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Abecedare: PLEASE HELP ME. Hope that answers your question. If not: yes, please feel free to edit. I've been struggling for the past two days where to start. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Also, to address your specific points here:
Virgin of Vladimir/Nomenclature is outside of GA scope
 Done per Special:Diff/912235161
The contents of the article on the Church is out of scope. Regardless, I think the article makes clear the Gallery and the Church are separate, but related, institutions. As the Gallery's relationship with the Church is not mentioned in the lead, I can't imagine people will be confused as to its involvement. Either way, I made this change to clarify that visitors can only enter the church via the Gallery per part of your concerns.
–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, on the first point, then there's no reason for me not to launch a WP:RM, since you clearly aren't going to do it. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK

Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi has received a comment, so I'd like for this receive a full review with 48 hours to address any concerns brought up. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Review 5 Sept

• I see the article has grown by some 6kb, and is greatly improved, since the review process began, which I think shows that waiting to do a full review was the correct choice. MJL, please concentrate on addressing points here rather than running around to other pages complaining about them, and doing nothing here. Thank you! Please comment/note a point is done just below it and sign.
• So far unaddressed:
  • The article is still listed under "Philosophy and religion" not "art and architecture".

  Not sure how to do that without hurt the bot's feelings. But like seriously, I don't know what the effects changing that would be. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • • None - just do it please. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @MJL: Just a note that I changed the GA category. Harrias ^talk 13:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
        • • Saw, thanks for that. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The RM is still open, but in the mean time the WP:COMMONNAME for the painting - gbooks N-gram - is a redlink. It should redirect and be given in the first sentence.

  As I have stated earlier, the subject of what is and is not WP:COMMONNAME is out of scope. For the moment, this information can be found in #cite note-1. Such placement is an aesthetic choice as to not overload the first sentence with several alternative names in bold. If the article changes titles after the move request closes, "Our Lady" will be swapped with said title. Redirects are also out of scope. I made it anyways per WP:IAR and there was no use to not do it at this point. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Edited: 23:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • • This is not a matter of the article's title. It needs doing. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Abecedare's old point above "...thought to have been painted in Constantinople? But in the lede that is stated as a fact (The icon was painted in Constantinople)" - in fact most top quality Byzantine art is assumed to be from the capital without any certainty. I'd add "probably" or similar to the lede.

  Y –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I'll check his other points later

• Lead - this is now shorter & better, but now a bit too short.

  This has now been expanded. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • "an early example of the iconography of the Eleusa type" - correct, & I know what you mean, but many readers won't. Maybe reorder to "is a medieval Byzantine icon, an early example of the Eleusa icongraphic type of Virgin and Child images." Is that clearer?

  I went with this –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Suggest adding (bold) to: "By at least the sixteenth century, it was in the Dormition Cathedral in Moscow, where it remained until it was moved to the State Tretyakov Gallery after the Russian Revolution"
  • "In the 1990s, it was relocated to the Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi, where it remains today." - that the church is in/attached to etc the museum needs saying (this is another undealt with point from way back).

  Y (see below) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I think the believed protective powers of the icon should be mentioned in the lead (probably at end para 1).

  Y –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The basic technical info (tempera on panel), damage vs original paint, restorations, & image on the reverse should be summarized in a sentence or two, giving you a para 3.

  What I did was expand information on its current location. Also added is information on its near destruction and quantified amount of restorations. Technical information is best left where it is in my opinion (being present in the lead image thumbnail and detailed in the Description section. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Tidying needed: "By ledge do, the image was taken from Vladimir to Moscow in 1395, during Tamerlane's invasion. The site where the Muscovites met the Vladimirs is commemorated by the Sretensky Monastery..." and "According to Suzanne Massie, it became a standard for many later depictions of the Marian."

  Y –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• "According to" - there are rather too many of these - we should only attribute things to scholars when it is at least to some extent their original/theory/view etc., or a quote. Some: "Academic Sona Hoisington attributes this...", "According to Peter Phillips," "According to Suzanne Massie" just repeat well-known stuff where the person is not a particular authority, and should go, & possibly others.

  Two "according to"'s removed (now only two). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• • • Sona Hoisington is still there, also Peter Phillips. I'd have left "According to art historian A. I. Anisimov, who participated in the most recent restoration in 1918–19, it ...", except that that was not I think "the most recent restoration". Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

"According to" is still allowed per the WP:MOS. Either way, Peter Phillips has now been cut. Maybe it's my pro-Jimmy Carter bias speaking, but I would prefer we attribute Sona Hoisington's statements. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Some re-comments added. WP was out in Europe last night, so we lost some time there, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk)

• Continuing:
• "First published in 1512, a legend was formed that the icon was painted by Luke the Evangelist from its living subjects." better re-ordered eg "A legend formed that the icon was painted by Luke the Evangelist from its living subjects; this was first published in 1512" or similar. Was 1512 a book or MS? Published might not be the right word. This legend was very common for major icons; if you have a source you might say so. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Y I specified that 1512 was just the first written account of this exact story. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Still on legends, with Stalin flying the icon around Moscow, there seems no doubt that this story was very widely believed In Russia at the time, & I think most historians think it was put about/encouraged/invented by the government. Whether they went to the trouble of actually doing a flight seems to be completely unknown. Phillips is a fine conductor but does not need mentioning here - there ought be better sources, even online. Don't know how much of this you can preview. A related story here. I'd date the battle too. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't have access to the book and tass.com just says icons in general were used for it. I used the thesis though, but the thesis says allegedly so therefore that's what I went with. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• "It is mainly the faces of Mary and Jesus, parts of their hands, and the gold background above her head that can be traced back to the original" according to the schematic image (excellent addition), it is only really the faces, part of Jesus's sleeve, and the gold background above her head that are original - ie none of any hands. "traced back" is too vague - I'd just say "are original 12th-century paint/work" or something. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Y –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Its transfer from Kiev to Vladimir was used by Bogolyubsky to legatize Vladmir's claim " - 2 mistakes. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Y Fixed –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

More later. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Sounds good! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Continuing: "The icon is dated to the earlier part of the 12th century, and arrived in Russia around 1131" - somewhat tautological, & I think something like "The stylistic dating of the icon suggests it was not an old painting when it arrived in Russia, by tradition in 1131". There are two different types of statement here, & it's better to bring that out. Looking at Hamilton (2nd edn), he says "between 1131 and 1136".
• "the account given in the Russian Chronicles" - that redirects to Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, of which there are many, several with articles. With four sources, can we mention specific ones?
• "In 1169, he plundered Kiev and stole much of its religious artwork including the "Mother of God" icon.[7" - This isn't the same icon, I take it? In a Russian context "the "Mother of God" icon" isn't much disambiguation. "The icon was moved to the Assumption Cathedral after its consecration in 1160." is out of sequence, as is most of the next paragraph. When did the horses stop? 1155, 1160, or another date? I'd rewrite the two paras in straight chronological sequence; it's very confusing at present. Assumption Cathedral has two links close together.
• "intercession" needs a link.

Y –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• "where the Muscovites met the Vladimirs ..."

Y –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Vasily I of Moscow spent a night crying over the icon..." is clear enough why he was crying? He was by then the ruler of Vladimir, as I understand it. Maybe explain that.

He could've been crying because Moscow was being invaded? No change made. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• "where it was stored as a simple art piece" - are we sure it was "stored", ie not on display? Seems unlikely, given its fame. "treated only as a work of art" might be better "art piece" is not very idiomatic.

Yeah, the cathedral was only used for storage/warehouse. The place really fell into disrepair, and the church was not happy about it. It might've been occasionally taken out for display (just speculation), but I do not know of any source which says as much. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Bakatkina, pp 44-45, is clear that in 1930 it was given to the Tretchakov and placed on display there. Btw, note her much more precise info on the Stalin air-flight just after. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• taken to the Epiphany Cathedral"

Y –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• "glances" - "looks out" better? Hamilton has "mournfully gazes at the spectator, and beyond him", which is nice.

Y –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• "of which only the 'M' survives" - better explain where.

I don't know. I removed that because I couldn't find it in either source. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You can clearly see it above and to the left of Mary's head, in the pic & in the schematic image of the restorations. I don't think you need a ref for that, but it may be hard for readers to spot if they don't enlarge the pic.Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• "It is mainly the faces of Mary and Jesus and the gold background above her head that are original twelfth-century paint."

Y –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• "In the past the icon has been covered with several elaborately designed oklad and riza (revetments)." - explain they leave nail-holes etc?

 Partly done I added In the past but I think if people want to learn the damaging effects of riza, then they can visit that article. Therefore, I only added which caused damage to the frame to the end of that sentance. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• "The reverse, which is much less well known, contains an image of Hetoimasia ('prepared throne') and instruments of Christ's Passion that was painted in ca. 14th century (prior to that the obverse side had a painting of an unidentified saint)." - "obverse" is wrong here, surely?

Y –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• "due to the tender attachment between mother and child" - it is the precise cheek to cheek pose that has the name, though showing tender attachment etc.

I don't know what you are requesting here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The type is a precise term for images with the cheek to cheek pose, which needs to be clear.

• " including a fifteenth century restoration thought to be led by Andrei Rublev" - tense

Y –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• " it's artistic quality" - tone

It should be "its" but quality in this context (as a noun) is a neutral word. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• "the icon subtly transitions from its normal use of contour lines to a refined surface texture" - not exactly what Hamilton says - better just to quote detailed stuff like this imo, & I doubt the link will help readers.

It paraphrases well enough to my own satisfaction. The link is to explain what on Earth contour lines are because that isn't something a lot of people know about (or maybe I'm just an idiot). `–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, not to mine, perhaps because I understand rather better than you what Hamilton is saying. Since the icon is not a map the link to contour line is likely to confuse rather than help the reader. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• "typical for Byzantine art of the period with features including smaller mouths..." or "typical for high Byzantine art", as Hamilton says. Also he rightly refers only to the Virgin for these details - eg the child hardly has an "elongated nose", Hamilton calls him "snub-nosed".

Y –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• " earlier Byzantine art " -link should be earlier

Y It already was at Byzantine works of art. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Our Lady of Vladimir's veneration is also likely enhanced by the fact that the Theotokos is regarded as the holy protectress of Russia." - rather bathetic.

I think this is fine as it is.–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• A bit more later. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: this round has been done. Though, I do need to interject at the A bit more later. This review is starting to cut into time I really need for real life projects. I sincerely ask that there be not much more now besides a simple pass/fail/hold for each of the GAN criteria. I write this practically exhausted in this moment. Please.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this doesn't cut much ice with me. In the three weeks since 24 August, you spent a maximum of 1hr 13 mins on it on 3 September, then 4 minutes on the 7th, then a maximum of 1 hr on the 13th. Meanwhile you have made hundreds, probably over 1,000, edits on dozens of other pages, doing at least two GA reviews, and heaven knows what else. At the start three editors warned you the article needed a good deal of work, and you have been extremely lucky that 3 experienced editors have pitched in to help (I hope you thanked them). Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

What policy is that? Also please ping future responses. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: What policy is what? I'd worry less about policies, and more about responses to the review points. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I am asking under which specific points of the GA criteria you think this article fails to meet and why. Do you need a second reviewer? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No - that would be bound to delay the process, which neither of us want. You're doing it again. You asked for a review, you're getting one, so please just deal with the review points rather than going off in meta-arguments about the process. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: and ping. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Final points

@MJL: I have added above on o/s points in the "Review 5 Sept" section that need fixing. Otherwise, it's just these:

• Kiev in the lead shouild be linked - I think Moscow is ok without. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• "The icon remains there today and only accessible via an underground connector from the state gallery to the church where services are still held." Missing "is" before only. Isn't "via a tunnel" or "underground passageway" clearer? comma after "church". Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• "The original painting bore the inscription ΜΡ ΘΥ, an abbreviation for 'Mother of God', of which only parts of it still survive" - drop "of it still". Your not saying where the parts are seems perverse.
• Let's hope we can get these cleared up quickly. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Also better deal with the point below. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source?

• Insight Guides Pocket Moscow (Travel Guide eBook).
  

I thought travel guides were not considered reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure - this is a travel guide sort of point, but it should be possible to source it elsewhere, especially for a Russian-speaker. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Claims in Insight Guides are written by and according to research by local experts according to the book's publishers, and all reviews are independent of them. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Status query

I noticed that MJL is on wikibreak until early November, but that other editors seem to be stepping up with regard to this nomination, including Lee Vilenski. Where does this leave the review? I'm asking in part because the related DYK, for which this article was to become a third bold link, has been in limbo in the hopes that this nomination would pass and therefore qualify for DYK, and I'm inclined to propose that the DYK nomination go ahead with the two articles it has, and leave Our Lady of Vladimir as a non-bold link, since it's been sitting for months. Johnbod, any thoughts? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It is very nearly there. One of my points above does involve some work (research in the sources), but I think is needed (clarifying the medieval history). The others aren't too onerous really. Obviously I'm happy whoever does them. I was happy to wait, as considered as a GA nom it's quite young (not saying much I know). It would be nice to get the double at DYK, but I suppose if it isn't bolded there now this could go as a GA single one later. If it's a nuisance DYK-wise, better go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Don't want to pile on too much, but it has been another month. Is MJL back? It looks like a fantastic review so hopefully it can be completed soon. AIRcorn (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, User:MJL has beeb editing quite a lot in recent days, indeed starting new articles, so I hope they will return. There's really very little left to do. Johnbod (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod and Aircorn: I received a message that this nomination had failed. User talk:MJL/Archive 21#Your GA nomination of Our Lady of Vladimir. Is that not the case? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a bot, based on the time.... still live as far as I'm concerned. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I came across it from the reports page, which states that it is still under review. Not sure how you got that message, but seeing as John is still keen to finish it and there is not a lot to do I would ignore it. AIRcorn (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, weird.. I'll take a look at the page and enact the final fixes. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Got it

I believe I have taken care of everything that has yet to be marked done. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Well you hadn't, but I have. Finally able to pass! Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Awesome, thank you so much!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)