Template:Did you know nominations/Huysman Gallery
- 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 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Huysman Gallery[edit]
... that the Huysman Gallery of Los Angeles closed after only six months due to a flap over the poster for its War Babies exhibition?- ALT1:
... that the Huysman Gallery of Los Angeles closed after less than a year due to a flap over its War Babies exhibition?
Created by Calliopejen1 (talk). Nominated by Yoninah (talk) at 13:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC).
- I suggested an alternative hook. It probably wasn't less than six months. We can't say for sure the number of months, though, given the lack of precision in the sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
-
- REVIEW started - will finish later. New enough, long enough. QPQ done. NPOV. Well-cited, including the good hook. But "a flap" seems too colloquial - perhaps "controversy" instead? Edwardx (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK:
- ALT2: ... that the Huysman Gallery of Los Angeles closed after less than a year due to a controversial poster for its War Babies exhibition? Yoninah (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Review continued. No close paraphrasing or copyvios found. The hook seems problematic. ALT2 looks better, but I can't find the sources to support it. From the cited sources that I can see online, Willick states "Hopkins left the Huysman Gallery shortly after the War Babies exhibition to take a position at the Los Angeles County Museum". In Hertz, I can't find anything about why the gallery closed, no mention of the lawyers withdrawing funding. The Pacific Standard Time source doesn't link to a page of the book, so I can't comment. Edwardx (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Calliopejen1, could you tell us if what's written in "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" supports the connection between the controversy and the withdrawal of the lawyers' support for the gallery? "The Beat and the Buzz" source does not support this connection. If you don't have any support for the connection, this sentence has to be rewritten. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, the page number link was wrong for the "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" citation (it linked to page 75, even though the citation was for 110-112 -- maybe you missed these page numbers?). The connection between the ad and the backers' withdrawal is on the bottom of page 112 in the "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" citation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- The link for "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" does not take me to a page in that book, just a general description. Could you try again please, as I'm unable to find it by searching Googe Books directly - could just be me, or being in the UK? On the bottom of page 128 of "The Beat and the Buzz", it does state that the three lawyers didn't want to have a gallery anymore, but not why. Normally I'd consider WP:AGF and just accept this, but with all the recent DYK scrutiny, I'm reluctant. Edwardx (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it must be an issue with US vs UK google books. When I click the link, I'm taken to page 110. Does this link pull up a quote for you? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
