Template:Did you know nominations/The Rocket (painting)
- 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 97198 (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Rocket (painting)
[edit].jpg)
... that Edward Middleton Manigault was inspired by fireworks in the fall (pictured)?
Created by Hafspajen (talk), Sagaciousphil (talk) (honorary member not to bothered with questions) . Nominated by Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) at 22:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC).
New enough and long enough. Mostly meets core content policies. However, the hook isn't directly cited and sentences like "...imagination and his instincts for color resulted in a highly personal and original style." sound a bit promotional. That specific example is also closely paraphrased. --Jakob (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK, changed to Manigault developed a highly personal and original style is that any better? It is hard to know what to write and what to cite or not to write, it happened that people said when I wrote paraphrased versions - oh, but that's not what the reference say... And his style is both personal and original - it has to be said somehow. Hafspajen (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- ALT 1 ... that Edward Middleton Manigault was possibly inspired by fireworks on the Hudson River (pictured)?
- Is all this now any better? Hafspajen (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Xanthomelanoussprog, what do you say. Hafspajen (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Jakec - made changes. Hafspajen (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- While ALT1 makes the blanket statement "was inspired", the article says "may have been inspired" and the source says "was probably inspired". Hooks should not turn possibilities or likelihoods into absolutes. Under the circumstances, I wouldn't go any further than the article allows; perhaps the article could be more definite by using "likely" or a form of "probable". I've struck ALT1; while it's very close, we need to accurately reflect the article and its source on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)