Template:Did you know nominations/Style (visual arts)
The following is an archived discussion of Style (visual arts)'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 PumpkinSky talk 23:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Style (visual arts)
[edit]- ... that according to Jaś Elsner, "style art history" was "the indisputable king of the discipline", but is now "dead"?
5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self nominated at 13:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC).
- See current note 16 for the hook. Expansion began March 6, reached 5x on March 8th by my count, & is now well over that. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Now double hook with Jas Elsner - new BLP started March 9th. Both refs at "Style" - do I need to copy the Elsner one there too? Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thoroughly written and accurately sourced; however, by this time the article has passed 5 days since reasonable expansion, and cannot be considered for DYK acceptation. MrJugs (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
No way, this nom was definitely within the five day rule. Expansion began March 6 for Style and reached 5x on March 8, and Elsner was created by March 9. This was three days, so there was plenty of time to spare. This should not be rejected on the time basis. OCNative (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly happy to give an exception here: Elsner was included within three days of creation, and less than two hours after the nomination was submitted. There is no possible reason for rejecting Elsner. However, the Style article began its expansion on March 6 yet was not nominated until March 12, six days after expansion: the nomination must be submitted within five days of expansion (which would have been March 11). So the nomination was indeed late, though only by a little under 14 hours. Since the other article was well within its time, I think it would be churlish to refuse to allow the originally submitted article to be bolded in the hook as well. However, a second QPQ needs to be submitted: the rule there is that each bolded article in a hook requires a QPQ review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the expansion, as noted in the nom, did not reach 5x until March 8th. Surely the count begins at that point, when it became a valid 5x expansion?
- No, the five-day count begins the day the expansion begins. You then have five days to add content to the article to ensure that it meets the DYK size criteria, and need to nominate it in that same period. (It's pretty clear on WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG that this is how it works.) It's the same thing with new articles: you have to nominate within five days of creation (the start of its "expansion" from nothing). Some people will nominate on the fifth day after the expansion started even if they haven't quite reached 5x, since we generally let people who are close or have miscalculated have a little extra time to get the full 5x. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the expansion, as noted in the nom, did not reach 5x until March 8th. Surely the count begins at that point, when it became a valid 5x expansion?
New reviewer needed for double hook; note requirement for second QPQ if not yet done. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
to first hook Jas Elsner. His article reads like a resume, not some work in an encyclopedia. Some praise for Elsner is even sourced to a book Elsner himself wrote. That's not good enough, unfortunately. The article Style (visual arts) seems thorough, well sourced and well written and gets a 
from me.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 20:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Pathetic comment really - what do you expect a biography of an academic in mid-career to look like? They write books, they give lectures, there you are. But this has gone on so long I'm past caring. The Shadi Bartsch quote is about the book, not from it. Debold him & let's get on with it. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I can understand your frustration that this process is taking so long. But as you may notice, there's a huge backlog. Therefore patience is - unfortunately - required. I would encourage you not to break WP:CIV because of it: it will certainly not result in your DYK nomination being accepted prematurely. Praise for a person should certainly not be sourced to a book he wrote himself. Having said all of that, a fresh review is required if the second bold is dropped.
- So, .—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 11:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's hard to see why (or exactly what "prematurely" could possibly mean in this context), but whatever. I repeat the quote is not from the book. My problem is not with the delay, but inappropriate reviewing. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Prematurely as in: approved before the article is good enough to be approved. Now to return to the book reference: reference number two leads back to a page where Roman Eyes is on sale: of course the selected reviews on that page are unanimously positive about the book and writer. Also, the first reviewer is even someone who we know nothing about yet he is quoted all the same. Furthermore, I'm doing my best here and the very least I ask in return is that you follow WP:AGF. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 14:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- You have approved style & I have withdrawn Elsner. What are you talking about? The first reviewer is a Princeton academic that Princeton UP thought worth quoting. I have read all the reviews of this on JSTOR, which were mostly very favourable, but none produced as pithy quotes as these. I'm not writing a book report here. I thought you were off the case anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Prematurely as in: approved before the article is good enough to be approved. Now to return to the book reference: reference number two leads back to a page where Roman Eyes is on sale: of course the selected reviews on that page are unanimously positive about the book and writer. Also, the first reviewer is even someone who we know nothing about yet he is quoted all the same. Furthermore, I'm doing my best here and the very least I ask in return is that you follow WP:AGF. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 14:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's hard to see why (or exactly what "prematurely" could possibly mean in this context), but whatever. I repeat the quote is not from the book. My problem is not with the delay, but inappropriate reviewing. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Pathetic comment really - what do you expect a biography of an academic in mid-career to look like? They write books, they give lectures, there you are. But this has gone on so long I'm past caring. The Shadi Bartsch quote is about the book, not from it. Debold him & let's get on with it. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- As the Elsner hook has been withdrawn, and the bolding has been removed from the proposed hook for it, that leaves the Style article, which has received an approval tick in the review above. Tick here is per Amberrock's tick above: as stated, "well sourced and well written and gets a [tick] from me." I have pulled the DYKmake credit for Elsner, too. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)