Template:Did you know nominations/Peter van Geersdaele
- 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) 05:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Peter van Geersdaele
[edit]
The ghost recorded by Peter van Geersdaele
- ... that recording a ghost (pictured) helped lead to Peter van Geersdaele's appointment as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire? He was awarded the OBE for serivices to museums, and his most notable work was taking a plaster mould of the "ghost" (i.e., impression) of the Sutton Hoo ship for the British Museum. See, e.g., Ipswich Star 2004a: "Mr van Geersdaele - who moved to Suffolk in the 1960s to work on the Sutton Hoo project and who has been awarded the OBE for services to museums"
- Reviewed: 100th Anniversary of the Canadian Navy
5x expanded by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 22:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC).
This looks OK. Earwig clear (the phrase "replica of the Sutton Hoo ship" turns up elsewhere :) ). Ignoring the references, the prose looks to be expanded about fivefold; DYKcheck says it was expanded sufficiently 22 days ago, it's definitely over 1500 chars. The tone and citations look ok; it relies a lot on the subject as a source, but as we are talking about his academic work here this seems unlikely to be inaccurate. I'm curious as to what he did for Parks Canada, tho. I can't find anything online, but Parks Canada themselves might be able to help with offline sources, if you are willing to take the trouble. HLHJ (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, and I like your hook! HLHJ (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, HLHJ. I couldn't find any information about what he did with Parks Canada either, other than the fact that he worked there; I may shoot them an email at your suggestion and see if they have some information. Looking at this again, I wonder if it's worth possibly running it with a photo (added above, with intentionally ambiguous caption)? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- I thought of suggesting that. Therefore, it's a good idea. It would be nice to know if you could caption it "Peter van Geersdaele recording a ghost"; the Sutton Hoo Historical Society would quite possibly know, and might be willing to donate an actual portrait, which would improve the article (but more work). I did a quick non-exhaustive Tin Eye search, found nothing. Commons has a (not very good) photo of the Sae Wylfing, too, which could be a resurrected ghost, but I think this photo is better. HLHJ (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- HLHJ, good idea re: seeking photographs. Just emailed them, asking for photographs of both van Geersdaele and the making of the cast. The former is probably more likely, as the copyright for many of the latter photographs is probably held by the British Museum, which does not freely license its photographs for commercial use. With the current photograph a "Peter van Geersdaele recording a ghost" caption would not work, for the image is from the first (1939) excavation, not the second (1965–1970) excavation when the cast was made. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Of course it is, that's obvious from the clothing! Sorry, not thinking. A photo of a ghost might be better phrasing anyway. The British Museum was apparently at one point using that image in an article which I couldn't find in in the Wayback Machine. Since this is a living person, he might also have photos to scan and upload... HLHJ (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- HLHJ, I also asked the Sutton Hoo society if they alternatively might know someone with the images, thinking they might put me in touch with him; will see what they say, but will probably directly ask for his contact info next. Would also be helpful in figuring out the rest of his biography (including Parks Canada) and bibliography. Speaking of clothing, it's fun looking at the photographs from the Coppergate helmet excavation; nothing like 1980s archaeology! --Usernameunique (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Of course it is, that's obvious from the clothing! Sorry, not thinking. A photo of a ghost might be better phrasing anyway. The British Museum was apparently at one point using that image in an article which I couldn't find in in the Wayback Machine. Since this is a living person, he might also have photos to scan and upload... HLHJ (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- HLHJ, good idea re: seeking photographs. Just emailed them, asking for photographs of both van Geersdaele and the making of the cast. The former is probably more likely, as the copyright for many of the latter photographs is probably held by the British Museum, which does not freely license its photographs for commercial use. With the current photograph a "Peter van Geersdaele recording a ghost" caption would not work, for the image is from the first (1939) excavation, not the second (1965–1970) excavation when the cast was made. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- I thought of suggesting that. Therefore, it's a good idea. It would be nice to know if you could caption it "Peter van Geersdaele recording a ghost"; the Sutton Hoo Historical Society would quite possibly know, and might be willing to donate an actual portrait, which would improve the article (but more work). I did a quick non-exhaustive Tin Eye search, found nothing. Commons has a (not very good) photo of the Sae Wylfing, too, which could be a resurrected ghost, but I think this photo is better. HLHJ (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, HLHJ. I couldn't find any information about what he did with Parks Canada either, other than the fact that he worked there; I may shoot them an email at your suggestion and see if they have some information. Looking at this again, I wonder if it's worth possibly running it with a photo (added above, with intentionally ambiguous caption)? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)