Talk:Marie-Julien Dunand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Cielquiparle (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created by TheLonelyPather (talk). Self-nominated at 21:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Marie-Julien Dunand; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • New enough & long enough. 4th nom confirmed so yeah, no QPQ. Neutral & cited, although some of the citations are rather thin (passing reference in one sentence as best I can tell via Google Translate). My main worry is on the hook... it's great to work on obscure topics, but I have to say that this one is tough to make interesting that also doesn't go beyond the sources, since the sources are thin. The "The Paper" cite merely says he gave the order to build the Cathedral to someone else, essentially, then immediately moves on to other matters. As best I can tell, the real issue was that the Chinese government paid the mission "700,000 taels of silver" (via Google Translate) which meant that the Monsignor was suddenly rich - it wasn't that he had some unique vision of building cathedrals, just he suddenly had the means to do so. Also, while education is good, the pageviews for Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level suggest that very very few people know what this is. It's also only loosely related to Dunand himself, as it's an honor received much later after Dunand was dead. Maybe something more direct?
  • Or if people really want "if it bleeds, it leads" riot news:
  • I personally don't think the Légion d’ honneur award sounds all that interesting - the source is basically a primary source, it just verifies it happened without any spicy details (doesn't help that the award was given for very vague reasons), and I'd rather have a secondary source discuss the matter if we were going to highlight it. SnowFire (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi User:SnowFire, thanks for your careful review! Your concerns are very reasonable. I think both ALT1 and ALT2 are stronger, and I am willing to drop the Legion of Honour stuff from the hook. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. TheLonelyPather (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGTM. ALT1 and ALT2 are approved, I've struck the original hook then. SnowFire (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]