Template:Did you know nominations/Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia


 * 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) 05:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia

 * ... that in Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia by Claude Lorrain (1682), the figures are "impossibly elongated – Ascanius, in particular, is absurdly top-heavy"?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Freda Corbet

5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 15:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC).

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review.
 * &#x2713; This article has been expanded from 537 chars to 7473 chars since 14:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC), a 13.92-fold expansion
 * &#x2713; This article meets the DYK criteria at 7473 characters
 * &#x2713; All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
 * &#x2713; This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
 * &#x2713; A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (13.0% confidence; confirm)
 * Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
 * No overall issues detected
 * &#x2713; The media File:Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia 1682 Claude Lorrain.jpg is free-use
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 155 characters
 * &#x2713; Johnbod has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Freda Corbet was performed for this nomination.
 * Symbol question.svg Article is newly expanded, and the hook fact (the quote) has a direct citation. The end of the second paragraph of The figures subsection is presently uncited. Miyagawa (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So it is, but this is not a problem for Dyk - see the rules. I have mislaid the ref for that one for now. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Point #4 of the criteria requires the article to conform to Verifiability. The very first section of that policy is WP:UNSOURCED, and the very first line that reads "All content must be verifiable." Therefore, DYK requires all information to be cited. The minimum one citation per paragraph DYK guide would generally come at the very end of the paragraph and therefore cite the entire thing. Miyagawa (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That last bit is manifestly not true. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The DYK rules requires one citation per paragraph. In order for this to meet with Verifiability to have everything cited it would be placed at the end of the paragraph to cover the entire contents of the paragraph. Now we can continue to argue about this ad infinitum, or you could just place the cite for the end of the paragraph. If you don't have access to the reference right now, then that's fine - there's no deadline here to make the required changes. This can simply wait until you have access once more. Miyagawa (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I can't remember where it was - & I've looked at a lot of sources. As you must be aware, your demand is pure instruction creep, & I don't like your suggestion that I falsify a reference. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no suggestion that you falsifed a reference. The only issue I have is that there is uncited information in the nominated article. My suggestion above that there's no deadline and you can take your time was just that - there's no need to rush. The nomination isn't going to go away because of some set timeframe to review it within. If it takes you a while to find the source once again, then that's fine. I didn't want you think that I was putting on pressure to do something quickly. As for scope creep - Verifiability is certainly not scope creep. It's a fundamental requirement of Wikipedia. Miyagawa (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. The question mark denotation above does not provide a complete review, and the second paragraph in the "The figures" section of the article does indeed have an inline citation. Per the DYK supplementary guidelines #D2, "A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph", so the article is presently actually meeting this requirement. #D2 does not state that the citation has to exist at the end of the paragraph. The citation also serves to verify content within the hook herein, although it is a primary source, published by the Ashmolean Museum at University of Oxford, which is exhibiting the painting. However, Oxford University is certainly a reliable source. North America1000 09:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to say that, although taken from the Ashmolean press release, I'm fairly sure the text is from the exhibition catalogue by Sonnabend, Martin and Whiteley, Jon, with Ruemelin, Christian (a part I can't read on google preview). Of these only Whiteley is an Ashmolean curator, eg Sonnabend works for the Frankfurt museum. Stuff by curators in large museums is  secondary, and normally regarded as free from the COI that output from over-enthusiastic marketing departments, especially in smaller museums, may have. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine. Just be aware that should this go to prep in the current state, and then one of the gang that likes to jump up and down on reviewers for not doing their job properly drags it back to here and starts up a thread on the talk page admonishing us - I did my job properly. Let it be on the head of the next reviewer. Miyagawa (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that previous comment was over the top. Wasn't sure if the appropriate thing was to delete it or not, so I've struck it. Miyagawa (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you able to give this a formal tick, so that it can be promoted? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ready for promotion. Copy vio checks etc were completed previously without issue. Miyagawa (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)