Template:Did you know nominations/Black Hours (Morgan Library)

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 PFHLai (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Black Hours (Morgan Library)

(

)

"Black Book of Hours"

... that the parchment of the 15th-century illuminated manuscript "Black Book of Hours" (pictured) was presoaked in black ink, creating a dark, mournful visual tone appealing to high ranking members of the ruling Burgundian court?
~~ALT1: ... that the parchment of the 15th-century illuminated manuscript "Black Book of Hours" (pictured) appealing to the high ranking member of the ruling court?~~

Reviewed: Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51

5x expanded by Ceoil (talk) and Kafka Liz (talk). Nominated by Ceoil (talk) at 04:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC).

expansion enough, long enough, inline citations and refs checks, interesting and factual hook. Good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers BabbaQ. Ceoil (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

BabbaQ, the review does not cover the remainder of the "within policy" criteria, such as close paraphrasing and neutrality, and also fails to check the submitted image and the length of the hook, which is well over the maximum of 200 characters (including spaces). Please complete this review, being sure to check all the DYK criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added a new hook, close paraphrasing and neutrality check and is ok, image is free and can be used. If the nominator wants another hooks Ceoil can suggest another one.BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

We might say vellum instead of parchment.
I wonder if it's worth mentioning Purple parchment and the gold stained vellum of London Canon Tables. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC).

Hi Rich, I don't know for sure if the Canon Tables are related. It seems a reasonable assumption, but I don't have the sources to verify at this time. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. Suggestion...
~~ALT2: ... that the vellum of the "Black Book of Hours" (pictured) was presoaked in black ink, creating a mournful tone appealing to members of the Burgundian court?~~ Ceoil (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Both ALT hooks need reviewing; it can't be BabbaQ for ALT1, but could be for ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are supplying much too much detail - this is a very hooky idea without any further illumination Victuallers (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Alt3...that there is an illuminated "Black Book of Hours" (pictured)?

How about :Alt4...that there is an illuminated "Black Book of Hours" (pictured) known for its mournful tone? Ceoil (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

519 char 23 February 2015, expansion began 3 October and continued to nom on 10 Oct when was 5592 char > 5x. Currently at 6349 char. Sufficient length. No close paraphrasing detected. Neutral. Image per commons in public domain. QPQ done. ALT4 83 char/under maximum and fascinating. AGF hook 4 cited to offline source. DYK check giving error “classed as stub”. In “Attribution and commission” section, citations missing at court of Charles the Bold and Pierpont Morgan Library in 1912. I've scratched the previous hooks that were problematic per above comments. SusunW (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the stub issue, that was because the Wikiproject template had this reviewed as a stub, which it obviously no longer is. I have no answer on the uncited passage though, except to agree that it needs either citing or removing, along with a similar statement in the lead. SpinningSpark 15:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Both referenced now. Ceoil (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks GTG. (Not a requirement of DYK however, per MOS you should probably correct the cite. It says "Ingo" It is not usual to refer to the creator by first name. The Bibliography shows Walther, Ingo. Googling him, the name is shown as "Ingo F. Walther". Thus the References should refer to him as Walther, not Ingo.) SusunW (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)