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) 05:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
Overall: A very hooky hook, bearing in mind the "stellar" list of names, as you put it in the article. The citation for the hook is taken AGF. The picture is a good choice. Apart from satisfying DYK requirements, it's fun in that the subject is about to throw acid at the audience - most of whom don't look at art properly, and won't even notice. Tee hee. It would be very difficult to create a neutral tone about this lovely subject, so I congratulate you for the linguistic restraint in the circumstances. There are some linguistic niggles which don't affect DYK acceptance, but this article is worth bothering that little bit more over: (1) Although I have given you a tick for neutrality, I don't think you need "very distinguished" (tautology?) in the header. "Distinguished" on its own is more authoritative. (2) You have "diverse" and "diversity" in the second paragraph; "vibrant" can stand alone more strongly (moins c'est plus), so you can ditch "vibrant" if you wish. (3) It might help to clarify the word, "figures" in para 3 of the header. It's most commonly used for numerals, but here I guess it means figure-drawing (life-drawing etc.). I come from a family of artists, but it threw me, anyway. (4) In para 3 of the header, you have "compared to," (highlighting similarities), as opposed to "compared with" (highlighting differences). Have you got the right one there? (5) You don't need "very apparent" in para 3 of the header - "apparent" will do the job more authoritatively. (6) I would recommend explaining the pun, even though it spoils the joke: closure as in ending, and enclosure (as opposed to closing a book or folder, which the reader might guess at wrongly). Knowing the French, there will be a third meaning, there always is ... (7) Rue de Rome is a disambig. (8) It would help to explain that the blind stamp creates a relief effect. But as I said, those are just niggles. There is only one issue which is any kind of holdup: (9) the QPQ is pending. Meanwhile, thank you for this article. Storye book (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
qpq now finalized. Adressing other points on the article talk. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the improvements so far. I have struck out the points that you have already addressed, as I write this. It would be nice at least to have the disambig corrected? Thank you also for the QPQ. All the basic DYK points are now covered. Storye book (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
A very hooky hook, bearing in mind the "stellar" list of names, as you put it in the article. The citation for the hook is taken AGF. The picture is a good choice. Apart from satisfying DYK requirements, it's fun in that the subject is about to throw acid at the audience - most of whom don't look at art properly, and won't even notice. Tee hee. It would be very difficult to create a neutral tone about this lovely subject, so I congratulate you for the linguistic restraint in the circumstances. There are some linguistic niggles which don't affect DYK acceptance, but this article is worth bothering that little bit more over: (1) Although I have given you a tick for neutrality, I don't think you need "very distinguished" (tautology?) in the header. "Distinguished" on its own is more authoritative. (2) 
Thank you for the improvements so far. I have struck out the points that you have already addressed, as I write this. 