Template:Did you know nominations/Erik Johansson (artist)
- 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: rejected by 97198 (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Erik Johansson (artist)
- ... that Erik Johansson's surrealist images are made up of hundreds of photographic elements? Source: Kerr, Euan (25 January 2019). "Johansson's surreal images delight, provoke thoughts". MPR News.
5x expanded by Jane6592 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC).
- formatted Victuallers (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Won't do a full review, but I will ask the reviewer to keep an eye out for promotional issues. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
A quick look shows this artist is well known internationally, to the point of being mentioned by the V&A which I think is a bar few can cross. I didn't think the article was too promotional outside the glamor shot. The primary author appears entirely unconnected.
@Jane6592: My only concern: the statement about hundreds of images being combined is exactly what the ref states, but the article itself has images that appear to be made of perhaps as few as three elements. A more accurate hook might add "... that some of" but that is not what the cite states. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz:
hmm, I wonder why you don't find any? I had an issue with the article calling his creations "witty and striking" in wikivoice, as well as "well known" with no citation. The lead claims that he "captures ideas" and combines images "in innovative ways", and the first line of "artworks and projects" claims in wikivoice that he "create[s] a new narrative and express[es] freely the 'dream world'". In addition, the "Creative process" section feels oddly personal (although that's shakier). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC) - In addition, the 5x expansion appears to have taken over a month, beginning with this edit on 2022 April 4 at 1572B. By a week before the nomination, the article stood at 6989B, and stood at only 9285B at the time of nomination. A 5x expansion needs to take, in general, a week or less to count as new (eligible) content – it's generally helpful to use your sandbox to incubate these kinds of changes so that you can make real 5x expansion in one fell swoop. You can IAR if you wish, but I did want to alert you of that rule. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Promoting with reviewers addition
- ... that some of Erik Johansson's surrealist images are made up of hundreds of photographic elements? —Bruxton (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Undoing promotion, since the article's tick had been superseded by theleekycauldron's "query" icon, which hadn't been addressed. It is highly significant that the nomination took place 53 days after the expansion began: I can't recall any prior article that was given that much expansion time. I could see an IAR if this were taken from the 5/12 expansion—an extra week for new nominators is not uncommon, and this is an extra eight days only. However, 5/12 isn't a 5x expansion yet: the article was 2393 prose characters prior to 5/12, and would need to be 11965, while it's currently 9017 prose characters; another 2948 would be needed. Jane6592, do you think adding that much material would be feasible? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Before promotion I posed the question about this issue on DYK Talk. Bruxton (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bruxton, I'm afraid I disagree with the response there. (In addition, promotions should simply never happen unless a tick is the latest icon.) I also think the original review by Maury Markowitz was inadequate: in addition to failing to mention the 5x issue, there are three paragraphs in Biography that are unsourced and should have been taken care of prior to approval. SL93 has dealt with the wikivoice and other textual issues that theleekycauldron brought up. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: All three are from the same cite, combined for clarity. Is there anything else remaining? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset and Maury Markowitz: Yes there are a variety of cite styles - I have that learned from studying the NPP guides. I am unsure if the proposal above is to close this as unsuccessful or we should discuss it further on talk? Bruxton (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: All three are from the same cite, combined for clarity. Is there anything else remaining? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bruxton, I'm afraid I disagree with the response there. (In addition, promotions should simply never happen unless a tick is the latest icon.) I also think the original review by Maury Markowitz was inadequate: in addition to failing to mention the 5x issue, there are three paragraphs in Biography that are unsourced and should have been taken care of prior to approval. SL93 has dealt with the wikivoice and other textual issues that theleekycauldron brought up. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, Maury Markowitz, Theleekycauldron, Victuallers, and Jane6592: Hi all, I am wondering what we should do with this nomination. On a personal note, I found the article interesting. But if the article does not qualify and we are not making an exception - what should we do with the nomination? Bruxton (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I still see some textual issues – I'll write them up later today. Once they're fixed, I'd be happy to IAR and provide a tick. The low-profile nature of the work, combined with the new status of the editor and the effort they put in, suggests to me that we shouldn't deny this because we expect faster work / a draft space incubation. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Tricky article. Amazing images ... and they all infringe copyright IMO Victuallers (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron and Victuallers: Interesting, we should probably remove the images. And thanks Leeky. I do not know if we should get more opinions about approving it because of the objection. Cheers! Bruxton (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bruxton, theleekycauldron, I think that before anyone approves this citing IAR they should first bring the matter up at WT:DYK. We've had lots of articles that were interesting but nominated over a week or over a month late—new or expanded, school-based or not—that have been failed due to the lateness; I don't see why this should be the exception. The article could at some future date become a GA and become eligible then, or it could still be expanded to 11965 prose characters at present and qualify that way, if someone wants to take this on; it seems pretty clear that the nominator posted this as their last act on Wikipedia at the end of the school term and is very unlikely to return. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, while I do agree that this needs further discussion at WT:DYK on whether or not it should be granted an IAR exemption, it's arguable that this being the nominator's "last act" may actually be a point in favor of granting in this case. The nominator is a student editor and appears to have ceased editing and is unlikely to return, so it's not like they'll get another shot at DYK. It can be argued that the article being featured on DYK could serve as a sort of parting gift. I would have been much less inclined to favor IAR here if the editor was either a veteran or a new editor who is still editing and thus still has other chances to nominate articles for DYK. On the other hand, I understand where the concerns about the "other similar nominations were rejected, why should this be accepted?" point, which is why I'd suggest this get a wider hearing before deciding what to do with it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I said at WT:DYK, I agree with Narutolovehinata5, we should just run this. — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm don't agree at all with the "parting gift" argument: DYK is not a consolation prize to be given out to students who are assigned by their instructor to send their work our way when said instructor is new themselves to Wikipedia and doesn't really know what's involved, and none of them are doing us the courtesy of sticking around to see things through. In any event, the discussion at WT:DYK is far from a consensus that we should IAR on this very late submission, so unless things change, this should not run. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I said at WT:DYK, I agree with Narutolovehinata5, we should just run this. — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, while I do agree that this needs further discussion at WT:DYK on whether or not it should be granted an IAR exemption, it's arguable that this being the nominator's "last act" may actually be a point in favor of granting in this case. The nominator is a student editor and appears to have ceased editing and is unlikely to return, so it's not like they'll get another shot at DYK. It can be argued that the article being featured on DYK could serve as a sort of parting gift. I would have been much less inclined to favor IAR here if the editor was either a veteran or a new editor who is still editing and thus still has other chances to nominate articles for DYK. On the other hand, I understand where the concerns about the "other similar nominations were rejected, why should this be accepted?" point, which is why I'd suggest this get a wider hearing before deciding what to do with it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bruxton, theleekycauldron, I think that before anyone approves this citing IAR they should first bring the matter up at WT:DYK. We've had lots of articles that were interesting but nominated over a week or over a month late—new or expanded, school-based or not—that have been failed due to the lateness; I don't see why this should be the exception. The article could at some future date become a GA and become eligible then, or it could still be expanded to 11965 prose characters at present and qualify that way, if someone wants to take this on; it seems pretty clear that the nominator posted this as their last act on Wikipedia at the end of the school term and is very unlikely to return. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron and Victuallers: Interesting, we should probably remove the images. And thanks Leeky. I do not know if we should get more opinions about approving it because of the objection. Cheers! Bruxton (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be consensus to grant an IAR exemption for this nomination and so it appears to be time to close this as ineligible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
