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 97198 (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
... that Nasser Khalili's collection of Meiji-era Japanese art(object pictured) is only equalled by the Japanese Imperial collection?Gagarina, Elena (2017). "Foreword". In Amelekhina, Svetlana; Elkvity, Dror; Panfilov, Fedor (eds.). Beyond Imagination: Treasures of Imperial Japan from the Khalili collection, 19th to early 20th centuries. Moscow. p. 7. ISBN978-5-88678-308-7. OCLC1014032691. Comparable, as acknowledged by many scholars and museum directors, in terms of quality and size only to the collection of the Japanese imperial family, this celebrated collection comprises outstanding art works created during the "Great Change" when, after more than two hundred years of isolation, Japan began promoting itself internationally as a country of rich cultural traditions.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) Note: this book has text in both Russian and English: page 7 has the sentence in English.
Overall: Interesting hook. Good to go. KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this because it's a nice image, but the hook fact in the article does not align with the source. The source says it equals (I would say "rivals") the Imperial family's collection as the "finest", while your lead says It is only equaled by the collection of the Japanese Imperial family in size and quality. Where did the "size and quality" part come from? And how does it "equal" it? This opens up more questions as to the "size and quality" of the Imperial family's collection. Frankly, you have a lot of other good information in the article to use for a hook. Yoninah (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Thanks for raising this and apologies for the lack of clarity. I see the source could be read as exclusive, but could equally be read another way, and that that statement in the lead is not supported by the existing refs. There is a source for the specific "only equalled in size and quality" comparison, but to get the exact details I need to consult the physical book, which I don't have in my house at the moment, so this will be fixed but it may take a few days. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Thanks for your patience. The correct citation is in the article and in the nomination now. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter: Thank you. So you can add "in size and quality" to the hook. But the hook is still vague. What do you think about including the number of items in the collection?
@Yoninah: That's absolutely brilliant. A big improvement! MartinPoulter (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter: Hmm. The source gives the number as 1,400 pieces. Yoninah (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah:The home page of the collection says 1,600 (when you click on "read more"). Looks like I updated the figure but didn't update the citation. I've now done that for the text in the article and for the infobox. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Update: I've contacted the Khalili Collections about this apparent contradiction between two pages on their web sites, and I'm told the smaller figure of 1,400 is correct. They will correct the figure on the official site. So I've changed hook ALT0a. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, since I proposed ALT0a, I shouldn't approve it, but since you changed my number of 1,600 to 1,400, I'll go ahead and confirm that the 1,400 number is verified and cited inline. I hope this will run with the image. ALT0a good to go. Yoninah (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Interesting hook. Good to go. KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this because it's a nice image, but the hook fact in the article does not align with the source. The source says it equals (I would say "rivals") the Imperial family's collection as the "finest", while your lead says 