Wikipedia:Peer review/Stefan Lochner/archive1

Stefan Lochner

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Any feed back or comments more than welcome. Thanks Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dudley Miles

• This is an interesting article about an artist I had never heard of.
• I would prefer (fl. c. 1437 - 1451) to guessing his birth date. (1437 as the date he must have been in Cologne to be a councillor in 1447)
• You say in the lead some paintings are dated 1430s but how securely are they attributed to him? There is nothing in the main text about pictures dated this early unless I have missed it.

• Have found more to add re this, thae page is still WIP it weems. Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Lochner was one of the most important German artist before Albrecht Dürer; an artist who held Lochner in great esteem and is most identified with continuing his legacy." 2 "artist" and the first should be plural. "most identified with continuing his legacy" is a bit clumsy and it does not seem to be supported by the text below - a diary entry which may not be by Dürer and one picture said to influenced by Lochner.

  Dürer is regarded enough that anything mentioned by him would arouse art historians interest. And it did. Reworded accordingly. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Early life - You say that his parents were citizens of Meersburg and then that there is no record of the family there!

  They seem to appear there only in the death records. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Move to Cologne. I would re-arrange this section. It is confusing to have the 14th century in the middle. You also say praise the 15C artists and say in the next paragraph that by the 1430s art there was conventional. The timescale is unclear.
• "Lochner had moved to Cologne, commissioned by the city council for decorations in connection with the celebration of the visit of Emperor Frederick III" This implies that he moved there as a result of the commission, but below you say he moved earlier.
• "After his arrival, Lochner, exposed to the Netherlandish artists and working with oil" This implies Netherlandish artists in Cologne, which is presumably not what you mean.
• "the acquisition of larger premises indicates the need for a larger workshop and additional assistants because of increased activity on his behalf." "on his behalf" sounds wrong. Maybe larger premises to house additional assistants.
• "The German philosopher and critic Friedrich Schlegel was instrumental in reviving Lochner's reputation" This is misleading. You make clear below that he was praising one work by an unknown artist. I would move up "However the artist's identity remained unknown, and he was referred to simply as the "The Dombild Master", with no other known associated works" to come before mentioning Schlegel and say he praised the Dombild Master.
• "Like von Soest, he often applied black cross-hatching on gold" This is the first mention of von Soest, so it should be linked.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Style. In the first para of this section you say that one of his innovations to Cologne painting was representing perspective, but below that he was not concerned with perspective.
• "This is not to say his paintings lack contemporary northern sophistication, but that his arrangements are often innovative." This seems a non-sequitur.

• Have reworded this slightly, but the point was that the International Gothic style is often seems as late medieval, rather than early renaissance . Ceoil (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• "It is difficult to detect any evolution in Lochner's style. Art historians are unsure if his work became progressively more or less influenced by Netherlandish art. Recent dendrochronological examination of attributed works indicate that his development was not linear; suggesting that the more advanced Presentation in the Temple is of 1445, but predates the more Gothic Saints panels now divided between London and Cologne." This is confusing. You say no evolution is known, then that his advanced work preceded his more Gothic (less advanced?) panels.
• Why is female subjects red linked?

• Fixed Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• "during his visit to the low lands" low lands?

• Fixed Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• You seem inconsistent whether using BR of US spelling. councilor (US) but colourist (UK).

• Victoria now taken to AN/I. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Legacy. This section could do with expanding, especially the first para.

• Will do Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• "and his Feast of the Rose Garlands of 1505-1506 is indebted." indebted? This is ungrammatical.
• You are inconsistent Chapuis or Chaptuis.

• Fixed Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• A good and interesting article but it needs copy editing. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you very much Dudley; very good points, will work through these and a c/e in general. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Artjf

• In the early life section, you mention that he was influenced by van Eyck and van der Weyden, but in the Influences section, you don't discuss van der Weyden at all. --Artjf (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc

Dear Mr.,

I had saw your work about Lochner. It is a very excellent work. Try just to explain where the works of Lockner are existing now and what are their values nowadays.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)