Template:Did you know nominations/Venus and Adonis (Titian)
- 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) 05:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Venus and Adonis (Titian)[edit]
- ... that Titian's painting of Venus and Adonis exists in "two-dog" and "three-dog" versions? pp. 36, 38 in Joannides, Paul and Dunkerton, Jill, "A Boy with a Bird in the National Gallery: Two Responses to a Titian Question", National Gallery Technical Bulletin, Volume 27, 2007, ISBN 9781857093575, PDF online
- 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)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Life (sculpture)
- Comment: New, was disam, but several stubs, most very short, merged and redirect here - see talk. Would also work if treated as 5x expansion.
Created by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 19:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC).
The article is long enough and the illustrations are all in the public domain (although the image illustrating the article should be cropped, look at that: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Venus_and_Adonis_by_Titian.jpg). The subject is valuable and the sources are of good quality., there also doesn't seem;to be any problem with copyright violation of texts. The only things that bothers me are the crucial statement "the nudity of Venus undoubtedly accounting for this popularity", which is credible enough but could very well be WP:OR, and the sentence "covered with a rich tablecloth with gold braid edges and buttons (not a military jacket, as sometimes thought)" which could do with a source as well. All in all, a fine article, and very pleasant to look at. Edelseider (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- This isn't really the place for general queries of this sort, that don't affect the DYK issues, but I have repeated the existing ref closer to the tablecloth, and linked to an example. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Don't be unfriendly. I am taking this endeavour seriously, as I should. Edelseider (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not. Such points belong on the article talk page. It's always best not to get sections here into general comments, unless they bear on the DYK criteria. But thanks for your comments. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- You are most welcome. Nevertheless the crucial statement "the nudity of Venus undoubtedly accounting for this popularity" should be reworded or sourced. That does bear on the DYK criteria - no original research (even though I believe, as I said, that this statement is factually correct). Edelseider (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- This is pretty fair bullshit, actually. There is nothing about "no original research" in the article as a whole in the DYK criteria. I think the extensive referenced coverage of the erotic impact of the painting at the time is easily enough to cover this in the lead. It is actually a blindingly obvious point if you've read the sources, but if you want me to dig out a more specific reference it will have to wait, as I am busy before going on holiday. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- If it's pretty fair bullshit (instead of simple bullshit, or just pretty bullshit, or pretty unfair bullshit), then you must be right. That's the criteria, now.
on AGF and considering the usual merits of the writer. Edelseider (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- This is pretty fair bullshit, actually. There is nothing about "no original research" in the article as a whole in the DYK criteria. I think the extensive referenced coverage of the erotic impact of the painting at the time is easily enough to cover this in the lead. It is actually a blindingly obvious point if you've read the sources, but if you want me to dig out a more specific reference it will have to wait, as I am busy before going on holiday. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- You are most welcome. Nevertheless the crucial statement "the nudity of Venus undoubtedly accounting for this popularity" should be reworded or sourced. That does bear on the DYK criteria - no original research (even though I believe, as I said, that this statement is factually correct). Edelseider (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not. Such points belong on the article talk page. It's always best not to get sections here into general comments, unless they bear on the DYK criteria. But thanks for your comments. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Don't be unfriendly. I am taking this endeavour seriously, as I should. Edelseider (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- This isn't really the place for general queries of this sort, that don't affect the DYK issues, but I have repeated the existing ref closer to the tablecloth, and linked to an example. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
