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

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]