Template:Did you know nominations/Musca depicta

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Musca depicta

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Detail from a Clara Peeters painting

• ... that many 15th- and 16th-century European paintings included a conspicuous depiction of a common fly (example pictured)?
  • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by Lembit Staan (talk). Self-nominated at 05:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC).

Image discussion

P.S. There are quite a few famous paintings with musca depicta in Commons. Unfortunately IMO they are not suited for DYK, because the fly will not be prominently visible by a Wikipedia reader. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I looked through all of the works in that Commons category, found the one with the clearest, most detailed depiction of a fly, and uploaded a crop of just the fly. I added a gallery to the article, including the full image. DYK has always allowed cropped images as long as either it or the full image appears in the article. However, I just noticed that the date of the painting is 1607, just barely into the 17th century, so I noted that in the (pictured). If this doesn't work, we could find one in the desired time period. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC) It seems it is the best musca depicta we have in commons. I don't think the century is critical and no need to clutter the text mentioning it. The image does not contradict the text: it was vogue in 15th-16th, but there is no claim that they vanished completely later. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC) By the way, can you create an image overlaying the magnified fly onto the lower left corner of the full image? It will not suit the DYK, because the fly will still be small, but it will be handy for the article, to demonstrate the scrupulous mastery. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Okay, I removed "early 17th century" from the (pictured). I see that you added the detail image to the page. That may be the best, rather than an inset. BTW, it's not "magnified", as such. I merely cropped the original-size image without otherwise altering it. (I'm collapsing this discussion to avoid delays in reviewing, because sometimes reviewers avoid nominations which have any existing discussion.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Looking. Needs some work on prose, will comment on criteria after am happy with that. Interesting page for sure, but dont like the word "conspicuous" in the hook..prominent? Ceoil (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I consulted the dictionary for ythese two words and I se that conspicuous is the correct word choice in this context. Uses by the source, by the way.Lembit Staan (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  :"and its presence may be explained by various reasons" isn't really good for a lead that might get to the main page. Overall, I dont think the writing is good enough, you dont seem open to correction, further I don't think you have nailed why this should even be an article. Ceoil (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps just delete the word "conspicuous" from the hook? It still works without it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Gave it a thorough copyedit and fixed formatting of the hook. As someone who's noticed these flies in paintings before and always wondered what their purpose was, I quite like this article. Short but sweet and seemingly comprehensive in its inclusion of all the viewpoints. Also as the subject has a whole book written about it (and some fairly beefy scholarly articles) I'm sure it meets the GNG. I also tried substituting different synonyms for "conspicuous" but I think it works best. Meets length and newness requirements, facts appear in the given sources. QPQ exempt (only one other self-nom, which I believe is this one). DigitalIceAge (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Lembit Staan and DigitalIceAge: what would you think about swapping the image out for the one in the lead? Gives it a kind of "Where's Wally?" (i always thought it was waldo) vibe, imo. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• That's a neat idea, I'm down. Also I forgot to mention Earwig detected no close paraphrasing (I spotchecked with the Steve Connor source and found none), and the one print source I could check also revealed no close paraphrasing. DigitalIceAge (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P4 with modified image

References