Talk:Nevers faience
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Yoninah in topic Did you know nomination
 | A fact from Nevers faience appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 May 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit- 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) 10:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
( )
.jpg)
Turkish-inspired Nevers designs
- ... that during the 17th-century heyday of French Nevers faience its painted decoration drew from Italy, Turkey (pictured), Persia and China, as well as the Court style of Louis XIV? Source: English abstract first page, also pp. 46, 47. Met Museum page
- ALT1: ... that the decoration painted on 17th-century French Nevers faience drew from Italy, Turkey (pictured), Persia and China, as well as the Court style of Louis XIV? (same sources)
5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 02:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC).
Article expansion is new enough and long enough. I'll have to AGF on sourcing issues as between source access and language barriers I can't really check anything for myself. Is there a source for the style list? I am a little unsure on the sourcing for #4 and #61 - it seems like the links don't support some of the claims in the paragraphs sourced to them. #62 raises some OR concerns. Dropping a few sentences from the article into Google raises no trace of copyvio or plagiarism. Hooks seem OKish although I wonder what the selection criteria for the countries were. No preference for any hook. QPQ OK although some source checking may be appropriate. Image is fine, the licence should probably say that the design of the pottery is too old to be copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- As referenced in the article, one of the style lists is here, the other in Estienne and various other sources. Is that what you meant? Estienne actually gives a summary list in her English abstract. The "the selection criteria for the countries" was significance, and space; I could have added French and Flemish prints and maybe Dutch pottery. All but one of the sources in English are online (in the UK at least), so the majority of the refs are at least partly verifiable, although the sources in French are the most detailed. Lots of the points are mentioned in more of the sources than are given as references. I've added other refs/pages at #4. For #61 you need to look at both parts given, which are online (or indeeed almost any the MET image files, which have the same provenance). I don't agree about #62 - simple counting is not OR. The picture licence is the standard MET museum one, of which many have been on the main page. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
As I am in Switzerland. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- As referenced in the article, one of the style lists is here, the other in Estienne and various other sources. Is that what you meant? Estienne actually gives a summary list in her English abstract. The "the selection criteria for the countries" was significance, and space; I could have added French and Flemish prints and maybe Dutch pottery. All but one of the sources in English are online (in the UK at least), so the majority of the refs are at least partly verifiable, although the sources in French are the most detailed. Lots of the points are mentioned in more of the sources than are given as references. I've added other refs/pages at #4. For #61 you need to look at both parts given, which are online (or indeeed almost any the MET image files, which have the same provenance). I don't agree about #62 - simple counting is not OR. The picture licence is the standard MET museum one, of which many have been on the main page. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
