Template:Did you know nominations/Pregnancy in art
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Pregnancy in art
[edit]
English pregnancy portrait, c. 1595
- ... that there was a fashion in England for pregnancy portraits (example pictured) in the decades around 1600? Various refs; this should cover it, or this on the pic used
5x expanded by Johnbod(talk) King Prithviraj II and an isp. Nominated by Johnbod (talk) at 02:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC).
- Nb, the last paras on the desco da parto are mostly copied from that article. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Since you copied text from Desco da parto to Pregnancy in art it should have been attributed on the talk pages. And it should have been noted in the edit summary (I don't find it.) WP:Copying within wikipedia 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Don't misquote the policy please: "It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination." My edit summary note was fine (especially as the material added was also by me). You can't have looked very hard for this [1], Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- It isn't a "policy", a guideline instead, and I didn't quote it. Simply gave you a 'heads up' and fixed it on the article talk page. Your edit summary of "mostly from..." was well intended, but poorly formed. Didn't use the word "copied" at all. Cf., your first note above. Not to mention that it was buried in the 193 edits you did to that page, so your "didn't look very hard" comment is misplaced. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Don't misquote the policy please: "It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination." My edit summary note was fine (especially as the material added was also by me). You can't have looked very hard for this [1], Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
This article meets the length and newness criteria, and I have adjusted the credits. The image is in the public domain, the article is neutral, the hook facts have an inline citation, and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this. The Croft citation does verify the hook, but I don't see the Croft citation in the article next to anything about "the decades around 1600". Yoninah (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: "where the fashion may have been introduced in about the 1590s" seems to support the hook to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
