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 SL93 (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Source:
“Beardsley (Aubrey Vincent)” in T. Bose, Paul Tiessen, eds., Bookman's Catalogue Vol. 1 A-L: The Norman Colbeck Collection (UBC Press, 1987), p. 41
Overall: Thank you for this article, and for the great pictures. I have rearranged the pictures on the page because they were impeding the sections in pc and laptop view, and were also impeding the double columns in the reference. I have also corrected the disambig link for Dorchester. This is a minor edit and should not affect this review. The qpq is done. The hook should work fine due to the name-dropping. There is just one issue. It is my own strong belief that new articles, which contain refs to bmd certificates and indexes to support valuable information about an artist's background, should be left as they are (and possibly inline-tagged), to accrue better third-party authoritative sources when available. However there are other views held by editors who see a greater problem with primary sources. Can we find any authoritative secondary or tertiary sources for the artist's background? Meanwhile I shall search old newspapers for obituaries of Clark, in case any of the required information can be found there. If I do contribute citations it will compromise my review, though, and you will have to find another reviewer. Nevertheless I do think we need to make the family citations stronger.Storye book (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
* I am very surprised that I can find nothing in the British Newspaper Archive about this artist, although it is true that very few newspapers of 1938 have been digitised or microfilmed. All I could find was a basic death notice in The Times. You are welcome to use this as a backup to the Ancestry citation for his death: "Deaths". The Times. No. 47919. Gale: Times Digital Archive. 15 February 1938. Retrieved 11 October 2020. Clark. On Feb. 13, 1938 at Cerne Abbas, Dorset, Joseph Benwell Clark passed peacefully away, aged 80. This link is available for free to anyone with a UK city library card. I shall let you know if I find anything else. Storye book (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
In passing, there is an extra reference for the Munchausen book here.Storye book (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Cerne Historical Society reported in 2016 that a new biog of Clark was to be published that year. (Link). If it exists, it may have the citations that you need for the family section. Storye book (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Updated review. Following more edits by the creator I believe that the improvement of the article, and the increased proportion of secondary sources, overrides my previous worry about primary source content. I still think the article may still be liable to tagging in respect of some primary sources (although I don't personally agree with WP policy on this matter). To state my position clearly, I believe that all histories have to be a work in process, and that there can be no such thing as a completed and perfect history. Therefore histories with a proportion of primary sources (where other WP criteria are met and no other sources are yet available) should not be cut or diminished on that account. So I am giving this the green tick in the hope that this interesting article based on valuable research can get through DYK safely. Note: as I write this, my contributions of potential citations (above) have not been copied by the creator into the article, so my review is not compromised. Storye book (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Moonraker: Thank you for your improvement of the article. Please see the above review update. Storye book (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for this article, and for the great pictures. I have rearranged the pictures on the page because they were impeding the sections in pc and laptop view, and were also impeding the double columns in the reference. I have also corrected the disambig link for Dorchester. This is a minor edit and should not affect this review. The qpq is done. The hook should work fine due to the name-dropping. 
Updated review. Following more edits by the creator I believe that the improvement of the article, and the increased proportion of secondary sources, overrides my previous worry about primary source content. I still think the article may still be liable to tagging in respect of some primary sources (although I don't personally agree with WP policy on this matter). To state my position clearly, I believe that all histories have to be a work in process, and that there can be no such thing as a completed and perfect history. Therefore histories with a proportion of primary sources (where other WP criteria are met and no other sources are yet available) should not be cut or diminished on that account. So I am giving this the green tick in the hope that this interesting article based on valuable research can get through DYK safely. Note: as I write this, my contributions of potential citations (above) have not been copied by the creator into the article, so my review is not compromised. Storye book (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)