Template:Did you know nominations/Olivetti Valentine

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: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 02:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Olivetti Valentine

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Olivetti Valentine typewriter (1969)

• ... that in 2016, David Bowie's Olivetti Valentine typewriter (pictured) was sold at auction by Sotheby's London for £45,000 – in spite of a presale estimate of £300–£500? Source: "A red Olivetti Valentine typewriter, designed by Sottsass ... sold to a telephone bidder for £45,000 pounds."
  The Telegraph (UK): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/art/david-bowie-auction-sale-of-late-artists-personal-collection-put/
  See also: https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/2016/bowie-collector-part-iii-design-ettore-sottsass-memphis-group-l16149.html
  • ALT1: ... that Ettore Sottsass's design of the Olivetti Valentine typewriter (pictured) was inspired by the pop art nudes of painter Tom Wesselmann? Source: "Sottsass transcended the sameness of typewriter design to give it an endearing personality. He tuned into Pop art, citing the orange nipples and pink breasts in Tom Wesselman's nudes as inspiration for the orange scroll caps."
    The Metropolitan Museum of Art: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/739409
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Patricia Davies (cryptographer)
  • Comment: I'm indifferent as to which hook would be preferable. Open to others' preferences and/or suggestions for improvement! Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: There have been many typewriters that have sold for a lot of money, but likely only one typewriter inspired by nude paintings. I strongly prefer the Wesselmann hook.842U (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Created by 842U (talk). Nominated by Cl3phact0 (talk) at 13:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Olivetti Valentine; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - n
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I agree that ALT1 is the preferable hook. Nice article, but there a couple of sourcing issues that need to be addressed: I have added one citation needed tag, and have tagged three unreliable sources (blogs and Tumblr) which should probably be removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks, AirshipJungleman29! I'll have a look at the tags (as I'd guess will 842U) and try to help resolve any sourcing issues. I've also struck out the first hook above for clarity, as ALT1 seems to be the preferred option. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I've resolved 2 of the 3 unreliable sources and am wondering if we should somehow preserve the third, as it contains a photograph of Dieter Rams actually typing on his Valentine (or if not, whether it's possible to upload the image to Commons for posterity)? I'm also wondering if there's a better way to resolve the advertising spot references (most of which are on youtube) – perhaps a notelist that groups these together? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: Is this ready for approval? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • The unreliable sources have been removed, so approved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)