Template:Did you know nominations/American Pre-Raphaelites
- 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 SL93 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
American Pre-Raphaelites
- ... that the American Pre-Raphaelite painters had an obsession with depicting birds' nest still lifes? Source: "It would appear more than coincidental that the emphasis upon informal stilllife elements, the accidental, humble object found in nature, precisely, meticulously rendered, began to appear in American art at just the time when the first major show of English painting was presented to the American public. Moreover, we have noted the profusion of Bird's Nest subjects in American painting after this time." [1]
ALT1:... that the American Pre-Raphaelites rebuked Albert Bierstadt's The Rocky Mountains, Lander's Peak by saying "20 times the study ... would not have justified him in attempting to fill so large a canvas"? Source: "Six years later, The Rocky Mountains, Lander's Peak was criticized by American pre-Raphaelites who thought that "twenty times the study that the artist has given to this picture,-study represented by actual sketches, built upon a previous ten years ... would not have justified him in attempting to fill so large a canvas" (New Path, April 1864, 161, quoted in Anderson and Ferber 1990, 194). " [2]
Created by Wingedserif (talk). Self-nominated at 16:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC).
- Article new enough, created on May 7, the same day it was nominated. Long enough at over 4200 characters.
- There are major problems with the references in this article; many don't support the statements made. For example, ref1 does say that Ruskin's book struck a chord with the Transcendalists, but p. 44 says nothing about plein air painting. Ref3 doesn't mention Emerson or Norton at all, and it doesn't mention Ruskin's painting. The last phrase in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the History section isn't supported by any source. Ref9 has the wrong page number; the article states that Richards became a marine painter on pp. 5 and 14. I'm sure you get my point, so I'll stop here. I'm unable to verify the sources in several refs because they're inaccessible, but I wouldn't be surprised if they suffered from the same issues. At any rate, this is a concerning issue with this article.
- The first hook is fine, but there's nothing in the article about Bierstadt's painting.
- There are major issues with the prose, which is secondary to the problems with the utilization of sources. The paragraphs are too short, probably because not enough information from the sources are included, giving this article a problem with comprehensiveness.
- I can't pass this article in its current state. I recommend that you remove the nomination, give up the DYK, and work on how you use sources.
Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- To your citation criticism: Ref1 was to connect Ruskin to Transcendental ideals, not plein air painting. Both the use of plein air painting and the popularity of Modern Painters are established by Ref3. Ref4 is to establish that Norton and Emerson in fact read Modern Painters. In Ref8 (I assume you meant), the relevant information is on the 12th page of the pdf—a mistake, yes, but a small one. As for the 4th graf of the history section, you'll notice that ref10 also establishes that the American Pre-Raphaelites criticized Bierstadt. The specific claim about the criticism of manifest destiny is verifiable in the Ferber 2019 source, which I have not had time to track down IRL. To me, none of this adds up to a "concerning issue" that fails to meet WP:V and can't be resolved w/ 1-2 edits. (As an aside, I wish you had phrased your criticism constructively instead of throwing your hands up.)
- I do not believe the article's paragraphs are too short, and their length is not a result of "not enough information". I break paragraphs often because they help structure information for a reader. As far as I know, DYK does not have a comprehensiveness criteria, so I don't know why "a problem with comprehensiveness" is even part of the rationale for failing this nomination. At ~4200b, this article is well over the 1,500b requirement. —Wingedserif (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Having taken a quick look at this, I'm as baffled as User:Wingedserif as to why User:Figureskatingfan has reacted this harshly. I don't see "major issues with the prose"; what issues there are are minor enough to be addressed as part of this review. The paragraphs aren't unduly short and a "problem with comprehensiveness" would be relevant at Good Article Review but is odd grounds for denying a DYK. I urge the reviewer to give the author a chance to resolve the minor problems with the article. This could be a constructive and positive process, resulting in better quality articles, if we choose it to be. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry that I came across as harsh, I was trying to help make the article better. Yes, my comments about comprehensiveness are more general than what's needed more DYK, but I think that if the nominator followed my suggestions, it would improve it. I said that I couldn't pass it for DYK based upon the issues with the references and the utilization of sources; sorry if that wasn't made clear. I also was concerned that the same issues would appear in the sources that aren't accessible, which I suspect they do. My point is that your references need to support your statements and claims. I see that your statement about plein air painting is supported by ref3, but putting ref1 after the word "ideals," makes it look like the ref is supporting the entire phrase, including the claim about plein air painting. The solution, I think, is to put ref1 at the end of the sentence. Yes, this is being picky, but it was easy for me to assume that ref1 supports both claims when it doesn't, so the simple solution is to move the ref. I think that if an article lands on the main page, it needs to be accurate. If you fix the above issues, I'll assume that you fixed the issues about the inaccessible references and sources and will pass this for DYK. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Having taken a quick look at this, I'm as baffled as User:Wingedserif as to why User:Figureskatingfan has reacted this harshly. I don't see "major issues with the prose"; what issues there are are minor enough to be addressed as part of this review. The paragraphs aren't unduly short and a "problem with comprehensiveness" would be relevant at Good Article Review but is odd grounds for denying a DYK. I urge the reviewer to give the author a chance to resolve the minor problems with the article. This could be a constructive and positive process, resulting in better quality articles, if we choose it to be. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I see that you've resolved the above issues, so I'm passing this for DYK. Unrelated to this DYK: I think that this article has great potential for improvement, so I suggest that you work on it some more. I also suggest that you remove the "Legacy" section and put the one sentence in another place in the article, until you add more content about the American Pre-Raphaelites' affect on American art. That way, you can remove the tag. Thanks, best to you. 
Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Figureskatingfan: yay, thank you! (And thank you for looking through the additional edits; I do appreciate the time and care you've taken with this review.) I'm glad that adding the quotes for the supporting citations helped clarify what of the existing text is supported by each source. And I absolutely agree: there are essentially three full books on the movement to expand the article, which I'm hoping to get to when my life becomes less hectic 🙃. —Wingedserif (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I know that it's annoying when DYK reviewers review more than what's necessary, but for me, it's because I sincerely want articles (especially those that'll appear on the main page) become as good as they can. Sometimes we need to clarify the difference between comments made for the review and the comments made for improvement sake. Make sure, after you do your research with those three books, that you submit this for GAN. Who knows, maybe you'll become our resident expert on the American Pre-Raphaelites. ; Best to you, keep up the good work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I've submitted this at WP:GOCE for a copyedit. This article will pass DYK but needs minor rewording that GOCE will be able to take care of. Desertarun (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've verified Alt0. So were good to go when the copy edit is done. Desertarun (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Copyedit is done, promoter should check the article over as its been a month or more waiting and there's been a few issues. Desertarun (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
