Template:Did you know nominations/Niagara Falls, from the American Side

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: closed by MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn by creator and nominator.

Niagara Falls, from the American Side[edit]

(

)

... that Kennedy gave a Church (pictured) as a present to Scotland?

ALT1:... that there's only one public Church (pictured) in Europe?

ALT2:... that Frederic Edwin Church had a romantic relationship with a waterfall (pictured)?

Created by Hafspajen (talk), Sagaciousphil (talk) (Honorary member, not to be bothered with questions). Nominated by Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) at 21:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC).

Because of ALT1 the article could be placed in hold for April 1 if wished for, Mandarax suggestion, per Xanthomelanoussprog talk. Hafspajen (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I mentioned that before I checked the source, which says it's "the only major example of Church's work in a European public collection". So I'm afraid ALT1 won't work in its current form. But the other hooks, assuming they check out, could still work for April Fools' Day, or perhaps another one could be constructed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

ALT3:... that the biggest public Church in Europe is in Scotland? (assuming that major=big!). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Mandarax is right, there is a small painting here File:The Old Boat Frederic Edwin Church 1850.jpeg 28cm x 43.2 cm (11 × 17) at Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, in Spain. But - as the museum site say, the majority is in USA List of works by Frederic Edwin Church Hafspajen (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Full review needed, now that the hook issues appear to be settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed and edited to all DYK standards, assuming good faith on the paper references (not a large part of the article) hence blue tick. I thought the original hook was fun in that I thought it was an actual church building until I read, so I'm going to vote for that one as it doesn't reference the biggest in the article (or if someone can fix and confirm that hook I'll vote ALT3), cheers o/ ~ R.T.G 16:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@RTG: did you check the online sources for close paraphrasing? I just corrected the close paraphrasing in the hook source, but don't have time to check the others. Yoninah (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I usually use the Dup Check, but now that I have found this, it says mainly only titles and stuff are matching. ~ R.T.G 18:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: 24.8% does not tell us how much of the phrasing matches, but how likely it is to fail a paraphrasing check so it's very unlikely, ~ R.T.G 18:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I use a tool, but usually I just eyeball it. I'll try to compare the wording in the article and the rest of the online sources later. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I can scan a document in a machine like way for a word, but not compare two! Bit of a skill wether you do them side by side or from memory. ~ R.T.G 22:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with DYK criteria. Any further discussion, if you must, should be on the article's talk page

Can I ask why certain words are defined in the reference section? They've already been linked to their respective articles and the block text is jarring against the other citations. Fuebaey (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Because realism and picturesque were removed from the article [1] as dyk fixing - and I tried to cover what was removed because that was part of the original concept. I think it was only a lack of understanding art history, those are fairly well known basic facts, and concepts used in art history - and - not a bit controversial. Hafspajen (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@RTG: to ask for an edit explanation. My impression was that it was removed because it wasn't directly relevant to the subject. There's no need to define art movements on a particular painting when linking to the articles (Realism and Romanticism) would suffice. Some references also seem to be block quotes, without attribution. Either incorporate it in the article or delete them and state where it came from instead. Fuebaey (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That is what you think. Yes it is relevant. It is the art history background that surrounds the artwork, and all art articles that handle the subject without presentation of the art style is nothing but a superficial presentation of the subject. Can't notice you reviewing this article, Hafspajen (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realise pointing out copyvio wasn't part of the DYK process. I guess someone else can finish this review then. Fuebaey (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested more in participating with this kind of amateurish level. Withdraw. Hafspajen (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I did wrote Withdraw here. Somebody asked for a new review, an account that is barely 2 month old, when nobody else protested, and the article was already reviewed. I did not performed any coyvio and I dislike being pointed out for it. I also might have done smaller changes if asked politely, but art history is my specialty and I do not intend to butcher an article with a legitimate art history background, just because this account wants me to. Hafspajen (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hafspajen, please do not remove transclusions from the T:TDYK page. This should be done by DYK personnel. As this nomination was made by Xanthomelanoussprog, it's really up to said user to withdraw the nomination. I've pinged the talk page, and can't imagine that Xanthomelanoussprog won't endorse your request, but let's do this properly. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I did asked him and he said OK. Is this two month old account a DYK personnel, jumping in asking for a new review? And I still not enjoying to be pointed out for copyvio when I never did anything like that. And his statement is a weird statement about "pointing out copyvio" when in fact he had done no such thing, if anyone bothers to check the closed section - that was about something else. And - about that - in art you DO discuss style. There were basically two major direction in art when Church lived. One of of them was Realism, the other Romanticism - and it is very much relevant - indeed directly relevant to the subject, which is the painting - if one is not supposed to add that to an art article - well - no thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Also this edit - in what way is that an improvement? Church was able to envisage the American natural environment as manifestly divine, considered representative of the importance of religion in american culture. Where did he got the religion from? Where did this came from? There is absolutely no religion in the refs.The Romantic movement has nothing to do whatsoever with religion. Church is the guys name. Why is this something that he called DYK-ifyng? - This text above suddenly replaced Emotions like awe – especially that which is experienced in confronting the sublimity of untamed nature and its picturesque qualities – were new aesthetic categories, and very different from Realism and Classicism as a source of aesthetic experience. The first one is incorrect - the other one is correct. Hafspajen (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If somebody should review articles it would be good if they actually know a little about the topic they chose, I will never chose let's say a Chines calligraphic topic because I don't have a clue. Hafspajen (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonset I endorse Hafspajen's request to withdraw the nomination. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)