Template:Did you know nominations/Peiraikos

The following is an archived discussion of Peiraikos's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Carabinieri (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC).

Peiraikos

(

)

... that all we know of the Ancient Greek painter Peiraikos is that he painted ordinary people, and sold well, but he was frequently cited in the 17th century?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St Bartholomew, Yeovilton

Created by Johnbod (talk). Self nominated at 16:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC).

Great article on an undeservedly uncovered topic, but what fun would there be if all the good topics were taken already? The last part of the hook seems to be derived from your article sentence "Peiraikos became frequently referred to in discussions of art in the Renaissance and especially the Baroque periods," but this sentence is uncited, so it's not clear if this is coming from one of your later citations, or it's an assertion of yours based on the fact that you found a bunch of Baroque discussion on Peiraikos. I would also suggest an alternate hook which may sidestep this issue: ... that all we know of the Ancient Greek painter Peiraikos comes from a single passage of Pliny the Elder?Gamaliel (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't really see the issue - notes 7-11 refer, with many authors mentioned, including most of the main art critics & biographers of the period. Note 12 refers to just before the 17th century & note 13 a long time after. Various sources mention the general discussion of the topic. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify: 1) DYK rules require any sentence that the hook relies on to be individually cited. There's no wiggle room here. 2) There's no doubt that there was 17th century discussion of Peiraikos. The issue is whether the 17th century featured more discussion of Peiraikos than your average art historical period, which is what the hook and the article imply, and that claim needs to be substantiated or we need to clarify the language so that claim is not implied. Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I not claiming that the "17th century featured more discussion of Peiraikos than your average art historical period", though in fact it did, by a mile, until the 20th century, when art historians began discussing the 17th century discussions. Johnbod (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The citations you added to that sentence are more than sufficient to demonstrate that there was significant 17th century discussion of Peiraikos. I've removed the word "especially" as I don't feel the citations justify that. Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)