Talk:Tragedy by the Sea

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 Lightburst talk 21:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Tragedy by the Sea

• ... that Tragedy by the Sea (pictured) shows a man and woman standing beside the ocean a few minutes after the couple's young son went missing? Source: Source
  • ALT1: ... that a 1954 image of a young couple (pictured) on a beach was taken minutes after their 19-month-old son disappeared? Source: same as a bove
  • ALT2: ... that Los Angeles Times photographer John L. Gaunt, Jr. captured an image of a couple (pictured) just moments after their 19-month-old son disappeared?
  • ALT3: ... that in 1955 Tragedy by the Sea (pictured) won the Pulitzer Prize for Photography?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Takes the Form of a Mortal Girl

Created by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 01:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Tragedy by the Sea; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

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

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: QPQ done. Earwig comes back clean. Image wouldn't be usable since it is neither free to use nor clear enough for a DYK. Otherwise, the hooks are all fine. Approval for ALT0 and ALT3. Addendum: For whatever reason I misread the information for the file. Image is OK to use for DYK! Sorry for the confusion, folks. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Image was a cropped version so I restored the full image. I think it still conveys the emotion and maybe better because it seems to demonstrate the urgency of the moment. Lightburst (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tragedy by the Sea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "missing, and had pulled": maybe break the sentence here, as it's getting a bit long and rambling.

I think I have corrected this. Bruxton (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Fischer says that Gaunt "ran" to the beach. Seems rather relevant here.

I have corrected this. Bruxton (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• The Thurber obituary of Gaunt makes it clear that this photo was the crowning achievement of Gaunt's career; we could say, I think, that it was mentioned at the top of the obituary.

I was not able to find that information in the source. Bruxton (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said, the obituary BEGINS "John L. Gaunt Jr., a retired Los Angeles Times photographer who was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1955 for his picture of a young couple standing by the ocean moments after their young son had been pulled out to sea, died Friday. He was 83." The emphasized clause is used to identify Gaunt to Times readers. We can say that the Times staff writer chose to identify him in this way.

I added a sentence to the bottom of the reception section. Maybe you can edit it if it is not correct. Bruxton (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• 'Reception' is currently limited to reporting on prizes. These confer notability and the Pulitzer jury's brief remarks are of interest, but it would obviously be nice if there were some actual review comments from journalists visiting the prize exhibitions or whatever. I do understand it was a long time ago.

I am not able to find more reviews but I will keep poking around.

• I guess the lead could mention the AP award also.

I have corrected this. Bruxton (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Images

• The only image is the subject of the article, which is PD. It would certainly be nice, given its status, to have a better-resolution version uploaded.

My search did not produce a better version. Here the Gaunt poses with the original and it does not look better. Bruxton (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That photo is clearly relevant to this article; it would be well worth including with (I guess) an NFUR.

Found where the image of Gaunt with the photo was published. Not sure about using it as a non-free. Bruxton (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe on his article. No worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• All the sources check out. Shame they're not more forthcoming about the photo.

Just found another article with some info I will incorporate. Bruxton (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I expanded the article a bit after doing a more thorough search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruxton (talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitely worth the effort. I wondered, reading the more detailed 'Background', whether that section should not be limited to events before the photograph ('Prelude', perhaps), i.e. we take a chronological approach, and place the later events in 'Aftermath' or something of that sort, after the 'Description'. But this is purely optional.

Yes the article works better with the aftermath section; I just added. Bruxton (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary

Well, there's not much to say about this short article, other than one could wish there was more, but it is as it is. None of the news reports give away anything more that's useful here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claim of camera settings

I changed the language from saying that the photographer made claims about the exposure settings to the more neutral wording that he stated his recollections. The newspaper article says that he recollected it. However, an exposure of 1/250 of a second at f/16 with the films of the day, likely later in the day, seems like a low exposure value. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)