Template:Did you know nominations/Exhibition of Australian Art in London
- 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) 06:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Exhibition of Australian Art in London
[edit]
‘The purple noon's transparent might’
- ... that Arthur Streeton's 1896 painting 'The purple noon's transparent might' (pictured) won critical acclaim at the 1898 Exhibition of Australian Art in London? Source: "Such a landscape as Mr. Arthur Streeton's 'Purple Noon's Transparent Light,' with its admirable drawing and aerial perspective, and its splendid force of colour, would hold its own in any London gallery" The Argus, quoting The Studio.
- Reviewed: Dena Vane-Kirkman
Created by HappyWaldo (talk). Self-nominated at 02:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC).
- HappyWaldo, I corrected the painting title to remove apostrophes and be in uppercase—can you confirm that is correct? Also, is there a reason for "might" vs "light" there? Did the newspaper run a typo? (I want to confirm that there's not a second similarly named painting before we all get egg on our faces!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- The correct title is ‘The purple noon's transparent might’, with the apostrophes, as the painting takes its title from Percy Bysshe Shelley's "Stanzas Written in Dejection, Near Naples". See the National Gallery of Victoria's page for the painting. It is certainly an error on the part of the newspaper. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- @HappyWaldo: Fascinating! Thanks for the confirmation, and I've re-re-corrected the painting title above. One more query: would you consider this alternate hook?
- ALT1: ... that no other "major survey" of Australian art in London has come close to reaching the level of female representation achieved by the 1898 Exhibition of Australian Art in London? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- No worries. I did consider going with a hook about the level of female representation, but since it's an art page, it seemed fitting to have an accompanying image. I went with the Streeton because many critics called it a highlight of the show. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- @HappyWaldo: Gotcha—I totally get that motivation. Although I don't think it's necessarily the best hook in the article, I'm happy to
approve this! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- @HappyWaldo: Gotcha—I totally get that motivation. Although I don't think it's necessarily the best hook in the article, I'm happy to
- No worries. I did consider going with a hook about the level of female representation, but since it's an art page, it seemed fitting to have an accompanying image. I went with the Streeton because many critics called it a highlight of the show. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- The correct title is ‘The purple noon's transparent might’, with the apostrophes, as the painting takes its title from Percy Bysshe Shelley's "Stanzas Written in Dejection, Near Naples". See the National Gallery of Victoria's page for the painting. It is certainly an error on the part of the newspaper. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
None of the main points of WP:DYKR have been addressed in the review above: I checked and the article is new and long enough, A lone, standalone sentence was not sourced, which technically qualifies as its own paragraph. I corrected this by adding a source to verify the content (diff), so this is okay now. Is the content of the hook properly verified in the article by the source in the article? Does the article contain plagiarism or close paraphrasing? Also it appears that the nominator needs to perform a QPQ review before this can move forward, as per the results of QPQ check. North America1000 05:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- While it would be better to cite The Studio directly, I can't access any online British newspaper archive (from what I can tell, they all require a paid membership). The Argus was "considered to be the general Australian newspaper" of the time, so I think it's reliable and gives an accurate assessment of The Studio's review. I will review another DYK shortly. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- @HappyWaldo: it has been almost 2 months since your last post. Do you plan to continue with this nomination? Yoninah (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Hi, I finally got around to reviewing another nom. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- While it would be better to cite The Studio directly, I can't access any online British newspaper archive (from what I can tell, they all require a paid membership). The Argus was "considered to be the general Australian newspaper" of the time, so I think it's reliable and gives an accurate assessment of The Studio's review. I will review another DYK shortly. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to check the article against all criteria. Please note NorthAmerica's comments above. Additionally, the ALT1 needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved editor. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- - Looking at the Earwigs report for the article there is a large amount of close paraphrasing present. HappyWaldo, looking at the report, can you go through and reword the (non direct quoted areas) that are flagged? Best, Mifter (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've done some editing. Direct quotes account for most of the suspected copyright violations, so there's no other way to phrase them. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks HappyWaldo. Length, Date, Cites, and QPQ are good and the image is freely usable (PD-Old.) I made some more tweaks and given that most of the quotes are PD, should be fine to go re Earwigs. Both hooks approved. Mifter (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I've done some editing. Direct quotes account for most of the suspected copyright violations, so there's no other way to phrase them. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)