Template:Did you know nominations/Anton Boys


 * 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

While there have been edits adding material over the past week, there is no sign that anything has been done to address copyvio issues, so this is being closed as unsuccessful.

Anton Boys

 * ... that Flemish painter Anton Boys' (c. 1540–after 1593) portraits of the imperial family are in the collection of the Kunsthistorische Museum in Vienna?
 * ALT1 ... that although Anton Boys was an appreciated court painter, his dates of birth and death are unknown?
 * ALT2 ... that although painter Anton Boys is mostly forgotten, his portraits of the imperial family are in the collection of the Kunsthistorische Museum in Vienna?
 * ALT3 ... that forgotten artist Anton Boys was a well regarded court painter in the 16th-century?
 * Reviewed: Mel Olson

Created/expanded by 2A02A03F (talk). Nominated by SL93 (talk) at 09:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg – erm, what? Anton Boys called Anton Waiss (1620/21–1665), but The date of his birth is not known and estimates vary from circa 1530 to circa 1550 and not know [sic] when or where the artist died but it is believed to have been some time between 1593 and 1603? That total contradiction looks like a copy-and-paste job gone wrong.Edelseider (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I will wait to see if the creator can fix it. If not, I'm pretty sure I can fix the article. I will wait first though. SL93 (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Tried to fix some of the issues. It may indeed sound strange that there is no clarity about birth and death dates but this is no so rare for that time.  A lot of the records in Antwerp were lost because of war and other events.  It appears the artist was ill and left court service at around 1589 after which there were fewer records on him.  It seems the latest known record of him alive dates to 1593.  I assume that the Netherlands Institute for Art History has relied on records or literature that state he was recorded as deceased in 1603.  That explains the period of 1593-1603.  The artist's many aliases and name variations may also explain some of the uncertainty surrounding his life. 2A02A03F (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just correct the hook on that page, where it still says "1620/21–1665" (where did you copy that from? Honestly, I'm curious) and it will be GTG. Edelseider (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: Maybe even reformulate the hook. It doesn't sound very exciting as it is now. Maybe something like "Even though Anton Boys is forgotten, his paintings hang in the KHM". Edelseider (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The (1620/21–1665) is from my edit on the article Carel van Savoyen, which I used as the template for this article. So nothing to do with Boys. Revised the hook. 2A02A03F (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Revised the hook", no, you didn't, it is still the same hook. Did you mean "I will revise the hook"? Edelseider (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you don't know what a "hook" is. It is the line with which the "Did you know" is presented. As in here (wrongly): ... that Flemish painter Anton Boys' (1620/21–1665)  portraits of the imperial family are in the collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna? You should rewrite that. Edelseider (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, got it. Not sure whether this works. Revised: ...that Flemish court painter Anton Boys' (c. 1540–after 1593) often unflattering and even comical portraits of the Habsburg imperial family are in the collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna?  2A02A03F (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Em, no, it is too long. Look, I will just leave your hook as it is (with corrected dates) and add a second alternative. Watch this space.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg. Article is long and new enough, no plagiarism, problems have been solved. Edelseider (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to go over all the hooks, given that all three ALT hooks were proposed by Edelseider, who was also the original reviewer (reviewers may not review or approve their own hooks). For the original hook, I don't think that specifying birth and death dates is useful, so I'm proposing the following versions instead:
 * ALT4: ... that 16th-century Flemish painter Anton Boys' portraits of the Habsburg imperial family are in the collection of the Kunsthistorische Museum in Vienna?
 * ALT4a: ... that portraits by 16th-century Flemish painter Anton Boys of the Habsburg imperial family are in the collection of the Kunsthistorische Museum in Vienna? —BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg IMO all the hooks are lackluster. Surely there's a hook in all the article detail? Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, they are not lackluster. Not every single person will agree that a hook is interesting. SL93 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then what's the point of DYK? To get readers not to click on your article?
 * ALT5: ... that Austrian court painter Anton Boys included both living and dead members of the House of Hapsburg in his 1578 painting Banquet of the Hohenems family? Yoninah (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you don't get my point. There have been many hooks that I find to not be interesting, but the reviewer(s) did. I didn't hold up the nomination though. In this case, the original reviewer, the creator, and another editor have participated in this DYK without saying anything about the hooks not being interesting. Why would that be my point? Is it not true that everyone has different interests? I do believe that people who have an interest in art and/or museums will click the article. SL93 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , − in fact, I did say that the original hook was a bit boring. I maintain that, in my eyes, the most interesting fact about this painter is the fact that he has been so thoroughly forgotten that we don't even know his dates of birth and death any more, in spite of the fact that he was a court painter, i. e. very well regarded in his lifetime! That is why I have proposed hooks centred on the oblivion. Readers are always hooked by rediscoveries of forgotten masters. Edelseider (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, but I meant to say "about all the hooks not being interesting". I apologize. SL93 (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As this seems to have got bogged down, I suggest ALT6, which is the creator's suggestion rearranged, and at 195 characters, short enough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ALT6 ... that the often unflattering and even comical portraits of the Habsburg imperial family by 16th-century Flemish painter Anton Boys are in the collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna?
 * − the problem with that hook is, that it isn't sourced (the subjective statement "unflattering and even comical" doesn't appear in the article)., , do you think it could be used in spite of that? Edelseider (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think it won't do, nor are the words "well regarded", "appreciated" or similar used in the article. Perhaps we should go back to ALT4 or ALT4a then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cwmhiraeth, what is wrong with the ALT5 proposed by Yoninah? Or didn't you find it interesting? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that too. I don't think Yoninah's hook is bad. SL93 (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg ALT5 would be satisfactory, but I just put the source into Google Translate and find the paragraph is almost identical in wording to the source, so we have a copyright problem. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I was pinged about this. Problem now is that we need to actually review the article, not just the hook. It needs a copyedit, some of it isn't written in English. It needs help with formatting etc, and we need to find a decent hook. I love his images, the stupid-over-fat Albert II portrait is wonderful. We need to take our time, and if we can through one of these images in as the lead hook, so much the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I appear dim but what exactly do you mean by "some of it isn't written in English"? Do you literally mean the long quote in a foreign language or do you mean that some of the text isn't written in a proper and grammatically correct English? Edelseider (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Large parts of this article seem to be copyright violations of this and this for example, and likely other sources as well. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: if it's a copyright violation, I am sorry to have green-lit it (I will be more careful in the future). However, I think it is a case of AGF: the author has quoted a source that he has linked to - but he has quoted it too much! If he'd paraphrase a bit, would it pass? Edelseider (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not your fault. The sections I noticed need to be completely rewritten. A German speaker would be helpful in discovering whether there are any more problems. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a German speaker. And now that I have looked into this source, it appears that a long quote has been translated into English and then put into the article (with some shortening of sentences, though). Okay... :( Edelseider (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine if this isn't passed. I guess assuming good faith on foreign sources can only go so far. SL93 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)