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 LordPeterII (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
... that some medieval manuscripts decorated by the Master of the Brussels Initials contain unsually realistic depictions of firebugs and butterflies(example pictured)?Source: G. Evelyn Hutchinson, Marginalia: Aposematic Insects and the Master of the Brussels Initials: The late medieval tradition of the iconography of nature, exemplified in the work of this 15th-century manuscript painter, contributed to the rise of modern biology, pp 167-189
Created by Yakikaki (talk). Self-nominated at 14:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC).
Interesting master, on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF. I suggest we get an image. Please check my changes to the article, especially the year of one source, - I could have picked the wrong one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Gerda Arendt for the review, and for the constructive improvements to the article! Perhaps this could work as an image? I'm sorry but I don't understand how to add it to the nomination properly, but am hoping this can do the trick: (removed) Yakikaki (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
That image is a bit too fine, - I thought more of the other one where one is tempted to see the creatures ;) - If you want to do it formally just look up another nomination with an image, and copy the format from there. I trust that a prep builder would know how to use this one. The caption seems repetitive to the title, but same. The image is licensed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but the other image probably doesn't show a painting done by the master, but by another artist, so I don't think it is appropriate here. I would like to have one with one of the bugs he painted... I will try to fix it and get back! Yakikaki (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the long thread about this, but I rearranged the pictures and added a cropped version of the first one, showing the little firebug: Firebug and spider by the Master of the Brussels Initials Perhaps better..? At least the article improved by this, I think! Yakikaki (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I smiled. This is not a long thread (which is when you argue with three people for five weeks, and then when in prep another finds something wrong, it goes to WT:DYK and we spend more weeks. Once, I almost forgot one that was archived and no trace in the nom pages ...) - This image is wonderful for illustrating the hook, thank you for taking the time. I took the liberty to move the pictured thingy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Gerda! I think dealing with these old books is in general very good for one's mood! ;) Yakikaki (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Yakikaki and Gerda Arendt: could you please point me to the text in the JSTOR source that describes the firebugs as "unusually realistic"? Can't seem to find it... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah, good point. Hutchinson does imply rather than explicitly state that they are unusual (e.g. "they are excellently depicted but in many works, even by very skilful artists, they become conventionalized and unrecognizable. [...] The present article primarily concerns two very curious sets of illustrations" (p. 161); "Those of Add. MS 29433 are certainly by someone who knew the bug in nature. All are on pages with miniatures, and one is within the finest and most elaborate in the book, so that they safely can be attributed to the Master himself" (p. 167); "The Pyrrhocoris apterus are certainly by the Master of the Brussels Initials and are good enough to imply that he knew the insect in life" (p. 170) and so on) but perhaps it's actually a bit beside the point; an alternative hook without the word "unusually" might be equally interesting? Yakikaki (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
How about using the wording "knew the bug in life"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
For me it's equally fine. Yakikaki (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and Gerda Arendt: Sorry, I just realised maybe I'm the one who's keeping this in a limbo. In accordance with the above, I therefore propose
ALT1: ... that the medieval depictions of firebugs(example pictured) by the Master of the Brussels Initials "are certainly by someone who knew the bug in nature"? Yakikaki (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
that's fine for me, but possibly we'll have to say who said so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Seems I was pinged :) if Gerda says the hook is cited and interesting, so mote it be. The promoter will do a double-check when making the rounds. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
All right. I updated the article accordingly. @Gerda Arendt:, what do you think about dropping the quotation marks in the ALT hook? Yakikaki (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes if we drop the "certainly" which is not Wikipedia voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Good, then it's ALT 2: ... that the medieval depictions of firebugs(example pictured) by the Master of the Brussels Initials are by someone who knew the bug in nature? Looks better without certainly, too. Thanks Gerda, and sorry for the mess here. I could have been more attentive. Yakikaki (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Interesting master, on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF. I suggest we get an image. Please check my changes to the article, especially the year of one source, - I could have picked the wrong one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
,_f.20_-_BL_Add_MS_29433_cropepd.jpg)