Talk:Gothic sculpture

This article was created, improved, or expanded by a translator from the Open Knowledge Association (OKA).

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Gargoyle at Ulm Cathedral

... that in Gothic sculpture, the representation of fantastic animals (example pictured) allowed artists to express their fantasy and humor without fear of censorship? Source: Cipa, Shawn. Carving Gargoyles, Grotesques, and Other Creatures of Myth: History, Lore, and 12 Artistic Patterns
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/St. Martin, Sindelfingen
- Comment: Article is mostly a trans-wiki translation, but afaik still eligible. Multiple other images available, but would require a different hook.

Created by Racnela21 (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 20:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I just realized the source supporting the hook, if clicked on in the article, yields an error for me. I don't know why, but the source is available for me under this Google books link (sadly without a "preview" option). Maybe it's because I'm in Germany; but if you are reviewing from elsewhere and still get the error, the source link in the article should be changed. –LordPeterII (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New enough, long enough and well cited. QPQ done. The hook is fine, but I think there are better images. I have added here the two I like best for this. @LordPeterII: do you want to propose (a) hook(s) for (one of) these? Srnec (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: I think the hook could still be used with the first image you suggested, as it has a sort of gargoyle as well; though I am not sure if it is superiour (image size probably, but there's lots of cobwebs). I don't have a hook for the second image right now, maybe I'll think of something. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then we're good to go. The promoter can decide which pic is better if s/he wants to use one of them. LordPeterII, if you want to pause the DYK to propose a hook for the Magdalene image, go ahead. Srnec (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the article is entirely a paid-for machine translation (apart from minor tweaks after it was added), as part of this project. Just saying. Don't know what the rules are on this - several of the project's translations (especially this editor's) have caused problems, as content forks etc. I don't really think this is a fork. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither disclosed paid editing nor article translations are disqualifiers under the DYK rules, as a matter of fact. I'd be more comfortable if the article were brought to GA status, though, honestly. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think these guys just dump & run. It needs a good deal of tidying - breaking up many monster paras, & I'd spread some of the gallery pics around the text. Some captions still usde Portuguese, and linking needs work. The raw byte count is 89,836 bytes, which might be a problem at GAN - another issue with several of these efforts; some are over 300K. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Johnbod and Theleekycauldron: Yeah, reading through it again I noticed some issues with tone, mostly. I nominated this for the pictures, but I won't be mad at all (honestly) if you say this nom should be failed. I noticed I've myself templated another translated by the same author, where the issue was more prominent. But if this nom fails, someone should really go and template the article (and the others) for the apparent issues. It's certainly a less problematic "paid editing" issue than in most other cases I know, but it'd be good to make Racnela21 aware that wiki work doesn't just consist of running something through google translate (we could probably have a bot for that). –LordPeterII (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm marking this for closure. SL93 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is also being discussed at WP:VPI#Restricting translations. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]