Template:Did you know nominations/Min fanglei

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Min fanglei

(

)

Min fanglei

... that the 3,000-year-old Min fanglei (pictured) set a world-record auction price for an Asian artwork, and was later sold again for more than twice the amount? Source: Artnet Meyer 2015

Reviewed: Diogenes pugilator

Created by Zanhe (talk) and Huangdan2060 (talk). Nominated by Zanhe (talk) at 07:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC).

@Zanhe: (courtesy ping Huangdan2060) some questions: do you want fanglei to be italicized? It's in italics in the article text, but not the hook/caption or title. I'm assuming it should be italicized? I took the liberty of doing so in the hook and caption.
Also a wording suggestion -- in English sources like this video for Christie's [1], it's referred to as the Min fanglei (e.g., One of the unusual features of the Min fanglei is ...), but lots of sentences in the Wikipedia article just refer to it as Min fanglei e.g., Min fanglei is dated to the late.... I think perhaps adding in some thes would make it read better? (Perhaps also in the image's caption for the hook?)
Anyway, the review: new enough (created 21 Feb, nominated 23 Feb); long enough (3897 characters), never been on main page before.
hook interesting, and referenced (AGF for non-English refs). I wonder if it's okay to report the second price when the article has conflicting estimates? Both are more than twice the former price, so I guess it's fine. I take it there are no estimates that are less than $18 million?
Every non-lede paragraph has citations, image is appropriately licensed. Accepting on good faith that non-English sources aren't too closely paraphrased.
QPQ done.
Approved Umimmak (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Umimmak: thanks for your review! I agree it sounds more natural with "the", and added it to the article where it was missing. -Zanhe (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)