Template:Did you know nominations/Pleasure Garden (painting)

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 Kimikel talk 03:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Pleasure Garden (painting)

(

)

Pleasure Garden by Frances Hodgkins

... ~~that when the painting Pleasure Garden (pictured) was offered to the Robert McDougall Art Gallery, considerable controversy ensued?~~

Source: ‘Pleasure garden’ was the first work by Hodgkins to be acquired for the collection and remains one of the most controversial acquisitions in the Gallery’s history. Further: However, a group of Christchurch subscribers did purchase ‘Pleasure garden’, and presented it to the Robert McDougall Art Gallery in 1949. The painting was rejected ‘on its [lack of] merits’. Controversy ensued and, when the work was again offered to Christchurch City Council in July 1951, it was finally taken into the Robert McDougall Art Gallery’s collection.

ALT1 ... that when the painting Pleasure Garden (pictured) was offered to the Robert McDougall Art Gallery, controversy ensued?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mayors in New Zealand
Comment: The article was written by Manymanydogs; I merely did a bit of tidying up. A very nice piece of work and the hook would go rather well with the striking image. It's worth talking about the painting's copyright status because this may well come up. The uploader's user name is "TimJonesCAGTPoW" and that would be Tim Jones from the Christchurch Art Gallery. He's been there forever and as you can see in his profile, he has responsibility for the archives of the Robert McDougall Art Gallery. When Tim says that they (the gallery) own the copyright, and he's happy to release it under a free license, he knows exactly what he's doing. Tim works quite a bit with Wikipedians (that's how I've met him before) and he has his head around copyright.

Created by Schwede66 (talk) and Manymanydogs (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 163 past nominations.

Schwede 66 04:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC).

Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - ?
Neutral: - ?
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - ?
Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was created on September 23, and nominated for DYK within seven days. Length is adequate and no plagiarism was detected. There are two citation needed tags for direct quotes, otherwise sourcing is adequate. There is one tag for subjective/weasel words, otherwise the article is neutral. The hook is interesting, but contains the subjective/weasel word "considerable". What exactly constitutes considerable and how is it verifiable? If the hook simply said controversy, it is verifiable. The nominated photo is stunning. I will AGF that the license is correct on the Commons. The image will greatly enhance the hook and it is used in the article. The other two images used in the article are also freely licensed on the Commons. The QPQ requirement is complete. Overall the nomination looks promising and a welcome contribution to DYK. Flibirigit (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Flibirigit. I've added the quote from this nomination statement to the article. If that's not enough to show that the controversy was "considerable", then there's ALT1. Otherwise, I've attended to the three tags. Schwede 66 02:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Aprroving ALT1, which is an accurate hook without subjective wording, verified by the sources and covered in the article. Previously concerns for sourcing and neutrality have been rectified. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)