Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Self-portrait wearing a white feathered bonnet

< Template:Did you know nominations
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Self-portrait wearing a white feathered bonnet's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 12:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC).

DYK toolbox

Self-portrait wearing a white feathered bonnet

edit
(
)

Rembrandt self-portrait, 1635

Created by Jane023 (talk). Self nominated at 19:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC).

  • This is an interesting article which is both long enough and new enough. The picture and hence the image is in the public domain as the copyright has expired. The "TV Interview" reference leads to a Google search page, and I think the hook is misleading as it implies that the painting had been hanging at Buckland Abbey for years whereas in fact it was donated in 2010. What about this alternative hook: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I like the first choice better. Though it did not go unnoticed for many years, it did go unnoticed for 3 years at Buckland Abbey. The TV interview website does not have persistent links, that's why I linked to the search. You should be able to pick it up - the first few minutes are in English. Jane (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems to have stalled. I agree with Cwmhiraeth that the original hook is misleading and too vague, not to mention factually inaccurate. "Hanging unnoticed" isn't really true: I'm sure plenty of people noticed it as they looked at the paintings in Buckland Abbey. What they wouldn't have known, (1) probably, was that it was an actual Rembrandt; I imagine that the description would have mentioned that it was of Rembrandt by one of Rembrandt's pupils, which would have been interesting to some folks. (Let's face it: (2) that hat is going draw attention.)
A new hook is needed, if you don't like ALT1. Possible approaches could be that the 2010 donation of a portrait of the artist was thought to be by one of his students, but turns out to be the first Rembrandt owned by the National Trust. (I imagine that (3) the work's title is a modern invention, since "self-portrait" would have made it clear that it was a Rembrandt.) Or that it's (4) the only Rembrandt out of 13,500 paintings owned by the National Trust. It would be nice to get this review moving again. I do have one question about the most interesting image in the article, however: the one with the portrait and x-ray image of it side by side. While the portrait image on the left is certainly public domain, (5) I don't believe the x-ray on the right would be, nor the combined image together. It could well be a case where a non-free image is fine; I just don't know. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! Yes, it stranded, yes it needs a new ALT, and yes it needs some work. All of that said, I will respond to the items I numbered in your comments above: (1) The painting has been known as a Rembrandt self-portrait since forever, and it was only rejected in the 1960's. (3) The purchaser in the 1980's (whose widow left it to the Trust) was well aware of the attribution rejection by Gerson but dismissed this and believed it to be a self-portrait. The "fantasy title" was his (if you click on the rkd link, the text there just gives both "portrait" and "self-portrait"). (2) The hat I am sure, did draw attention, but only in the context of the costume department located at Buckland Abbey, and the painting was not labelled at all, but hanging high on the wall (see the video of them taking it down). (4) The attribution still appears as "Studio of" in the list of paintings at Buckland Abbey on the PCF website. I agree this would be a better hook, since it is definitely a big insurance and security problem for them, as well as a new visitor attraction. (5) The x-ray is a 2-dimensional reproduction of a public domain work and falls under "not artistically created and therefore not in need of protection". In order to make a new ALT I need to know if we are in agreement that it should be on point (4) - cause then the Trust article should be updated. Jane (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Jane, I didn't want to prescribe what the hook should be, I was just making suggestions. If you want to do an ALT on it being the only National Trust Rembrandt, that's fine with me: it was certainly supported by the sources I saw. You could try a couple of different ALTs if you want. As for the rest, you see the dangers of my using my imagination and expecting sense out of the Buckland Abbey folks. Thanks for the information about x-rays and "not artistically created" if a straight reproduction. As for (2), even if the Rembrandt was high on the wall, you can't know no one noticed it or paid no attention to it. I've had my eye caught by out-of-the way paintings in overcrowded exhibits or stately homes. Visitors wouldn't have known it was a Rembrandt, but good paintings tend to attract eyeballs. (I've struck the original hook.) I understand why you wanted to insert numbers into my post, but in future, please don't. This time, however, it can stand. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks for the reply - I will work on the "only Rembrandt in National Trust" alt. Jane (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • We need some work on this soon, because this nomination has fallen into an inactive state. If activity is not presented in a timely manner, this one have to be delisted. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 07:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I forgot about this. I will try to update it today. Thanks for the heads up. Jane (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Modifying the X icon, which seems a little drastic under the circumstances. We can certainly give Jane a little time. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I tried to show it was the only one, but it turns out that there's another one, though there's a Dutch Wikipedia article on it claiming it's still in private ownership. It's on the Your Paintings website so it's definitely Trust ownership today.Jane (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Jane, if you're going to say "one of two" in the hook, you have to say it in the article and to source it there as well. If they said at the time it was the only Rembrandt (which I seem to recall), maybe you could go with that instead? Do you know whether the Catrina Hooghsaet was added to the National Trust afterward? (I notice that the National Trust is holding off changing their attribution until it is confirmed by some experts in Cambridge.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. Jane (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The reference in the article provides a citation for the fact that the National Trust owns another Rembrandt but not that its ownership is limited to two, as far as I can see. Also, I think you need a better url for the TV interview. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, it's back to "the only one" (the other IS still privately owned and is on loan, while this one has been donated and cannot be sold). On the TV link issue, as I stated above, the TV website does not use persistant links. The TV interview is (as yet) nowhere else to be found, but is mentioned in other sources. Do you want me to remove the actual link as it stands and refer to a newspaper article? It seems a bit second hand and I am not aware of any restrictions of letting google search work this way. Jane (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

How is this article doing now, reviewers? —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 15:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer Cwmhiraeth is away from his desk at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Why does the article currently state the Rijksmuseum failed to buy the £40 million painting while the source only talks about "negotiations"? —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 11:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Because the Rijksmuseum would have hung the painting in their own museum, had they been successful? Jane (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
How do we know it's not currently in the Rijksmuseum? It needs a source.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 11:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the offending sentence. Whatever the facts about that other painting, it's not core to this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Thx Jane (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I've Googled up some additional sources (both in English and Dutch), and all of those that speak about of the number of Rembrandts in the National Trust say it's the only one. Therefore, I think it's good the whole Hooghsaet thing is out the window. Is there any good reason not to {{DYKtick}} this right now? —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 19:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good to Go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Self-portrait_wearing_a_white_feathered_bonnet&oldid=863518723"