Template:Did you know nominations/Portrait of Kitty
- The following discussion 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Portrait of Kitty[edit]
- ... that Kitty's portrait was given to Walsall by her mother?
Created by Jambrown (talk). Nominated by Pigsonthewing (talk) at 10:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC).
- Article is new and long enough, reliably sourced, interesting enough and is short and snappy. — AARON • TALK 13:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unclear hook. Walsall means The New Art Gallery Walsall should be clarified here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- No; The New Art Gallery Walsall did not exist at the time of the donation, which was made - as stated and cited in the article - to the town, not to a specific gallery. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thats even better reason why the hook needs to have clarity. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have added a link for Walsall, otherwise hook is fine. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'd prefer the former, unlinked hook, which thereby acts as an inducement to follow the main link to find out more. Of course, the house style should apply, but isn't that the point of DYK?.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have added a link for Walsall, otherwise hook is fine. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thats even better reason why the hook needs to have clarity. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- No; The New Art Gallery Walsall did not exist at the time of the donation, which was made - as stated and cited in the article - to the town, not to a specific gallery. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Something freaky seems to have been going on behind the scenes here. The "paragraphs" are not paragraphs at all, but single sentences arranged close together. The first line "Portrait of Kitty 1948-1949, oil on board, 35x24cm, is a painting by Lucian Freud of Kitty Garman." looks like it could have been copied form an art catalogue. Referencing is subpar, and I've added about 5 CN tags. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's what we call a "new editor". Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- The paragraphing, perhaps, and as it regularly stops at the period I'm leaning towards AGFing on that. However, referencing still needs to be brought up to DYK standards (rule of thumb is minimum one footnote per paragraph) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- It unsurprising that an art gallery curator writes in the style of an, er, art gallery curator. I've reformatted (this is a wiki; you can edit too!) and added some refs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have done some (I rewrote that first sentence and tagged). Combining the paragraphs in the Wikitext has little, if any, effect on the readable text. The main thing here is referencing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's what we call a "new editor". Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- In addition to the cn tags, a copyvio check turns up significant similarities to this BBC site. However, because there is no date on that site, it's unclear who copied from where. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- They might well have the same author; I imagine Your Paintings (the text of which will have been supplied by the gallery) came first, & both may be redactions of the Gallery's book on the collection (possibly same author again - Andy will know). If "wide-eyed feline" is treated as a quotation from the website (or the book?) I think the rest is ok. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've marked that up as a quote. John is correct; the BBC article is sourced from the gallery, where the editing was done as part of a residency, and which was also the source for the book cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- They might well have the same author; I imagine Your Paintings (the text of which will have been supplied by the gallery) came first, & both may be redactions of the Gallery's book on the collection (possibly same author again - Andy will know). If "wide-eyed feline" is treated as a quotation from the website (or the book?) I think the rest is ok. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
What is the current status of this article and review? It has two bare URL refs, which would prevent it from being approved, but are there other outstanding issues? It's been a week since the last comment here; I don't want to call for a new review with such a basic problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's still a significant chunk of material identical to the BBC page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Response may be delayed while Andy convalesces; this nomination should be held open in the interim. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Response may be delayed while Andy convalesces; this nomination should be held open in the interim. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have templated the references. As I said above, "the BBC article is sourced from the gallery". I also note that Jonbod said above 'If "wide-eyed feline" is treated as a quotation from the website (or the book?) I think the rest is ok.'. This was done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I suspect Johnbod missed the "read more" tag; the paragraph revealed is nearly identical to one in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Tried to reword using BBC passage as a reference (don't have McGregor ref). Did Shelia McGregor write this for the BBC? If not the quote attribute can be removed. Froggerlaura ribbit 19:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I still can not see the text, but running the quote "reveals his intention to depict the world with all its imperfections, bereft of symbolism or flattery" through Hathi Trust's limited search for the McGregor source book reveals an exact hit on page 75 as stated in the article. More alarming is that (before it was fixed) the entire sentence was lifted verbatim from the book without any attribution. Should probably go over this one with a fine tooth comb, if this offline source was not attributed before there are probably more I can't see. Froggerlaura ribbit 04:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Tried to reword using BBC passage as a reference (don't have McGregor ref). Did Shelia McGregor write this for the BBC? If not the quote attribute can be removed. Froggerlaura ribbit 19:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been asked, on my talk page, to comment, but there's not much I can add. I'm no longer in contact with the author. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Under the circumstances, with an article creator who edited on May 2 and May 5, and hasn't been back, that the nominator is no longer in touch with the creator, and that there's no way to know if additional unattributed material remains, I don't think we can promote this to the main page absent someone willing to wield the "fine tooth comb" Froggerlaura so aptly recommends. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
