- The following discussion 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) 02:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mini Lisa
edit
- ... that the Mini Lisa is a replica of the Mona Lisa (pictured) that is smaller than the width of a human hair?
- Reviewed: Rapa Nui National Park
Created by ThaddeusB (talk). Self nominated at 00:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC).
I don't know. Looks well-sourced and well-detailed, even when I didn't check sources. However, shouldn't it be merged into Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations? --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Mini Lisa meets notability requirements for a stand-alone article in that in has been covered in depth by well more than the minimum of 2 independent reliable sources. It is covered at the replicas article with a few sentences. That seems to be the normal amount of coverage, with the exclusion of L.H.O.O.Q. - a very important work in its own right. To include the full three paragraphs at the replicas article would be undo weight and/or impractical as there are multiple replicas & reinterpretations each year that attract some media attention. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- ...Are there any other Mona Lisa reinterpretations and replicas in the 21st century? I created a short section about 21st century replicas. --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- See Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations#Unconventional interpretations which almost entirely about things from the last 5-10 years. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Almost forgot:
amount of sources doesn't mean much to me. All sources are news sources. You can find different info from books and non-news magazines and scholarly journals, but I could not find such in Google Books.The article mentions largely comparison of 2013 replica and the original Mona Lisa, even with reception. Also, even when the replica meets WP:GNG, a policy might overcome a guideline. --George Ho (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Could not find significant coverage of the replica in non-news sources. --George Ho (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- By policy, there is nothing wrong with news media sources. The Mini Lisa is brand new, so of course it is not mentioned in any books yet. It does, however, appear in a scientific journal - the reason it was created was to further the scientific research. That said, I agree with your comment below - a third party opinion would be helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know whether another review will say the same thing. The page about Mona Lisa replicas is getting longer. --George Ho (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The article is brilliantly sourced, which (in my opinion) is enough to demonstrate the subject's notability. It appears that many more sources are available, if necessary. The hook worked like a charm for me, and there is no doubt it will be attractive to other readers as well. Surtsicna (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
