Template:Did you know nominations/Brutus (Michelangelo)
Appearance
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Brutus (Michelangelo)
[edit]- ... that opposition to tyranny in sixteenth-century Florence led Michelangelo to sculpt a heroic Brutus (pictured)? Source: De Tolnay 1975, Wilde 1978
- ALT1:... that Michelangelo's Brutus (pictured) wears a pin showing his own face? Source: De Tolnay 1935
- ALT2:... that to sculpt Caesar's assassin Brutus (pictured), Michelangelo studied his appearance from antique coins? Source: Vasari, De Tolnay 1935
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Isaac T. Stoddard
- Comment: There are probably more good hooks for the crafting. Also the reviewer might consider whether alternate images such as this one might work better. Thanks.
5x expanded by Groupuscule (talk). Self-nominated at 12:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC).
- Sufficiently expanded three days prior to nomination, and with a single edit! It would have taken me 15 at least :) The article is twice as long as it needs to be to qualify. I see no neutrality or sourcing issues. The references are properly cited; I added one to the only unsourced piece of information and also made a few tweaks. I could not access the sources supporting the hooks, but I verified the hooks through a Google Books search. This also means I cannot confirm that there is no close paraphrasing, but I think we can assume good faith as the author/nominator is an experienced user. The images are all free of copyright violations.
The hooks are all short and punchy, but Michelangelo should be linked. Surtsicna (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review and the copyedit—and well done distinguishing between fibula and fibula (brooch)! groupuscule (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sufficiently expanded three days prior to nomination, and with a single edit! It would have taken me 15 at least :) The article is twice as long as it needs to be to qualify. I see no neutrality or sourcing issues. The references are properly cited; I added one to the only unsourced piece of information and also made a few tweaks. I could not access the sources supporting the hooks, but I verified the hooks through a Google Books search. This also means I cannot confirm that there is no close paraphrasing, but I think we can assume good faith as the author/nominator is an experienced user. The images are all free of copyright violations.