- 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) 20:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Art pottery
.jpg)
Art pottery "wave bowl" (not radioactive)
... that the interest art pottery took in ceramic glaze effects led to some pieces still being slightly radioactive today?Source: Bergesen, Victoria, Bergesen's Price Guide: British Ceramics, 1992, Barrie & Jenkins, ISBN 0712653821; for general info on radioactive ceramics, see Radon, Health and Natural Hazards, Editors: G.K. Gillmore, F.E. Perrier, R.G.M. Crockett, pp. 50-52, 2018, Geological Society of London, ISBN 1786203081, 9781786203083, google books
Created by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 17:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC).
This article is new enough and long enough. The image is suitably licensed, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. However I am not enthralled by the hook; the term "art pottery" is not familiar to me, and you seem to have personified it, so the hook is difficult to parse. You could go along with something like ALT1 "... that glazes used in art pottery include one that leaves the pot slightly radioactive?", or something else altogether. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- I thought the point of DYK was to introduce readers to things they were not familiar with? I can call it a movement ("...the interest the art pottery movement took in.." if that helps. Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I think DYK's purpose is to showcase the sort of new and expanded articles that Wikipedians are creating. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I came by to promote this, but I agree with Cwmhiraeth. The first hook is kind of hard to understand, whereas ALT1 is nice and easy, and of course the image is fantastic. Could you reconsider something straightforward like ALT1? Yoninah (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's much too easy for my taste; I'll have to think of something else. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps mentioning that they were radioactive due to the use of uranium could work? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not very pursuaded by these: I'm not sure that "one" in "glazes used in art pottery include one that leaves..." is correct/referenced. The chemical was an ingredient rather than a glaze as such, & that wording might be open to challenge. I want to keep the interest in exploring glazes in, as relevant to the core article, which uranium isn't really. So:
- Perhaps mentioning that they were radioactive due to the use of uranium could work? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- ALT2: * ... that the pursuit of new ceramic glaze effects led to some pieces of art pottery (example pictured) still being slightly radioactive today, nearly a century later?