Template:Did you know nominations/Perseus and Andromeda (Leighton)

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 Victuallers (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Perseus and Andromeda (Leighton)

(

)

... that in his painting Perseus and Andromeda (pictured), Lord Frederic Leighton contrasted Andromeda in white to a dark sea monster with an irregular and jagged body?

Comment: probably we need a crop of the image
Reviewed: Trout Creek (Monument Creek)

Created by Hafspajen (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 13:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC).

Since the legend section was copied from another article, it doesn't count toward the length for DYK purposes. That leaves only about 1050 characters of prose. We'll need another 500 or so for the article to be DYK eligible. (It was also technically nominated a day late, but I'll let that slide.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. Will talk to the author who put up "retired" but hope dies last, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please check the article history: the article was created by Hafspajen at 7.50 on 8 April; by 9.45 on 8 April - just fractionally under two hours later - the section had been re-worded. Four days later, on 12 April, an attribution edit was added. I have no idea whether this is sufficient re-wording or not. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Copied material is not normally considered "new" for DYK purposes. Rewording in later doesn't matter - if this wasn't a new article, reworking existing material certainly would not count toward the 5x expansion criteria. Indeed, some reviewers prefer to treat copied material as if it was the pre-existing article and require 5x expansion on that. I prefer the less strict "rule" of just not counting the copied bytes.

Now as it turns out, you are in luck. The material added today has brought the total new material to just over 1600 bytes, so its a moot point.

No plagiarism or other policy issues detected. Hook has been confirmed by provided source, which appears o be reliable. I did remove the word innocent from the hook since that is symbolism not backed by the source (presumably true, but not in source so best to leave it out of DYK.) Image is public domain. It would indeed to be best to perform a crop if the image is used. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)