Talk:Siena Piano

Did you know nomination

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) 07:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Immortal Piano is partially built with wood from the pillars of the Temple of Solomon? Source: "it is claimed that the source of wood for the piano was from the trees Hiram brought to King Solomon for the building of the first Temple." (Winners Auction House)
  • ALT1:... that the 221-year old Siena Piano sold for $320,000 in 2020? Source: "$320,000: The amount a rare Nazi-seized piano sold for an aution in Israel last week. The Piano of Sienna's 221-year journey began in... (The Economic Times ET Panache 12 March 2020)
  • ALT2:... that the Piano of Siena has been called simply the story of a pianist falling in love with King David's piano? Source: "Perhaps pianist Artur Schnabel put it most succintly when he said: Sometimes it happens that an ordinary man falls in love with the King's daughter, or an ordinary women falls in love with the King's son. But Carmi, pianoman extraordinary, has simply fallen in love with the King's piano. (The Fantastic Saga of the Siena Piano pg 66)

• Reviewed: Karoly Grosz (illustrator)
• Comment: more expansion needed, will do

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk). Self-nominated at 12:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC).

• I'll be doing this review. ALT0 is a bit too PEACOCKy for my tastes; ALT1 seems better at the moment. I'll get to more later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have expanded the article enough to meet DYK requirements. Also, I have no problem with modifying or cutting ALT0. DTM (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

For ALT0, I would suggest changing it from being definite to having wording that goes something like "is claimed to have been...". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ALT0a ... that the so-called Immortal Piano was claimed to have been partially built with wood from the pillars of Solomon's Temple?

I'm not sure if this would work since the claim can't be proven for sure and personally I think it's unlikely to be true, but the option is there. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• @John M Wolfson: It's been a few days now and some of the hook concerns have been addressed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• @John M Wolfson: Narutolovehinata5, Actually, I just noticed that the figure of "$320,000" had been removed from the article. I have the print version of the newspaper with me. I can't find another online source which says how much it was sold for in the recent auction; I assume that is why the figure of "$320,000" was removed. I can send a photograph of the newspaper to anyone in case they want to see it. Can I put the figure of 320,000 back into the article or should I leave it? Accordingly Hook 1 will have to be removed.

@Kimpire: You are the one who removed the figure of 320,000; please explain here. DTM (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Story time: I was independently interested in the history of the piano, and noticed a week ago that the Winner auction house's website did not describe how the auction proceeded. I sent them an email asking about it, and they said the piano was not sold at the auction. Only yesterday (after receiving that email) did I notice that there was a Wikipedia article on the subject, and I was surprised to see the article's claim that the piano was sold. I checked each of the cited sources and found that none of them supported the claim, so I removed the sentences from the article; I obviously didn't know that one of the sources had previously read differently. If I may wildly speculate, perhaps $320,000 was the highest bid, but that this was below the item's reserve price, and the reporter initially misunderstood that fact.

In a follow-up email this morning Winner said the owner still plans to sell it but refused to provide any further information. Obviously, however, neither email is a citable source. Kimpire (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed: - na
• Used in article: - NA
• Clear at 100px: - NA

QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is only for ALT1 andALT0a; ALT0 and ALT2 (even with my rewrites of the latter) still have issues with copyediting, distinction between claim and fact, and interest for those who don't know about King David to be eligible for the main page, IMO. (And ALT1 has verifiability issues as discussed above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 Working DTM (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Image removed. DTM (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I still have issues with its licensing and its presence in the article, but I'm taking that to Commons rather than holding this discussion up. As said earlier this is only for ALT0a. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson, I had misunderstood the image in the article part. I have removed the image from the article too until licensing issues sorted out. Please note, the image is still present in French version of the article. DTM (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)