Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 05:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash

[edit]
(
)

Created by Swpb (talk). Self-nominated at 20:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC).

  • Article new enough, long enough, fully referenced, and using appropriately licensed image; hook short enough, interesting enough, cited to online source and illustrated with PD image (I prefer the original hook to ALT1). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
  • Comment Both hooks would look better without "Futurist", which adds little and may even be confusing to those not familiar with Futurism. Edwardx (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think WikiArt is a reliable source. Can this be replaced with something that is? I note also that the Critical Response section includes only comments by Tom Lubbock from 2009 for a painting completed in 1912. Lubbock's comments are worthwhile but we would really expect more than one response here and to start with something more contemporary. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Including "Futurist" worked fine for me, of course not every reader will be familiar with it, but probably even fewer have heard of Balla so the context is useful -- the movement is linked after all. As for WikiArt, this is an unrated article and the source is used to cite uncontroversial elements, not history or opinion, so I don't consider it a deal-breaker. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • We don't use unreliable sources even for basic facts so it still needs to be changed. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I know a bit about art but I'm not an expert on art websites and I didn't see at the time that it was editable by the general public -- you're quite right. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I have removed WikiArt as a source, and referenced those statements to other sources. I've also found and added some earlier commentary, but contemporary sources don't seem to be available online, at least not outside of a paywall. —swpbT 14:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, it's much better. Pity Cornelia Geer LeBoutiller's views are so mean spirited and frankly rather silly. Perhaps she didn't like dogs. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment "Futurist" is more important w/r/t this piece than the artist's name is, but that said it looks and works better placed in front of the title than the artist's name (Fixt). — LlywelynII 18:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we really need to go with the Alt as the idea that a 2002 mathematical paper was inspired by a 1912 painting that was itself partly inspired by techniques from the 1870s seems a little fanciful. How could they have received fresh inspiration from ideas that everyone exposed to modern media is already well aware of? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Philafrenzy - the ALT is more plausible, and the original hook seems rather a stretch. Edwardx (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe there's a better way to describe the connection between the painting and the paper; that connection is clearly "hookier" than the alt hook, and it would be a shame to give it up. What about:
—swpbT 12:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I can't help feeling that the painting is just being used to liven up what could otherwise be a dull scientific paper with an amusing painting of a dog that loosely relates to the subject. You can't really draw scientific data of the kind they claim from an oil painting and as far as I can understand the paper they didn't, which actually makes the claim that the painting was the "unifying theme" doubtful. The (2002) paper was published in conference proceedings but was it also published anywhere else? Is it cited? Are the authors renowned scholars in their field? To be frank, if I saw the article for the first time and saw that section I would probably remove it entirely as being largely unrelated to the subject of the article which is the painting, not the paper. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, well if you feel that strongly about it, please use the ALT at the top. It's not worth losing the DYK entirely. —swpbT 12:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You have done a great job on the article, there is no chance of losing it. Incidentally, the original review did not pick up the fact that the picture is not free yet as Balla died in 1958. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Good catch on the image. Sucks, though: kind of pointless have this hook without it. — LlywelynII 13:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • User:BlueMoonset, if you have a moment, could we get an outside ruling on the status of this review? Afaict, it originally passed, someone rightfully objected to a non-RS, that got fixed, and whichever hook should be good to go. Do we need another reviewer to check everything again? [edit: maybe we do, given Philly's catch w/r/t the image status...] or do we just move forward with ALT1? Personally, I don't think User:Philafrenzy's complaints are well-taken at all. There was a paper, it did use this painting, that fact is cited in the article, and their other complaints aren't germane to a DYK review. To me, the original hook is at least a little surprising; ALT1 seems banal: of course that painting derives from slow or multiexposure photography. It'd only be odd if it weren't. — LlywelynII 13:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
So, can we get that green check? I feel like time is slipping for this to make the DYK rotation. —swpbT 13:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem with the original hook is that it is a bit silly as you can't draw scientific or mathematical information from an oil painting or realistically use it as the "theme" for such a paper. The picture is from Balla's imagination as influenced by ideas current at the time. It's not a scientific observation. What's wrong with Alt1 now the other problems have been fixed? I am sure the original reviewer could now tick it. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
To editor Ian Rose: What say you? Alt1 is fine with me. —swpbT 12:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
To editors LlywelynII and Philafrenzy: The original reviewer has peaced out. Can I get a check please? —swpbT 19:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm still around, this was on my list but it takes a while to wade through everything above. First thing, I'd remove the thumb entirely from here if it's not necessarily PD in the country of origin (I admit I only considered its US status when I saw the date) so there's no chance of it progressing to the front page by an oversight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
To editor Ian Rose: Image removed. —swpbT 12:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Alt1 also needs a tweak to remove fascination with chronophotography, which does not appear to be directly supported by the sources. Replace just with photography (if supported)? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Changed to "interest in". —swpbT 15:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to recheck the ALT1 hook and the sourcing, taking into account the comments above. The other three hooks, all on the computer paper, have been struck based on subsequent comments. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ticking for Alt1. Changed it back to fascination as I see Art Story use the word. All outstanding matters have now been resolved as far as I can see. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dynamism_of_a_Dog_on_a_Leash&oldid=1189655843"