Template:Did you know nominations/Female Figure (Giambologna)


 * 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 Allen3 talk 13:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Female Figure (Giambologna)

 * ... that Giambologna's untitled 1571-73 sculpture of a woman bathing (pictured) was known as Bathsheba in the seventeenth century, perhaps in an attempt to justify her nudity through biblical association?


 * Reviewed: Evangelienmotetten

Created by Ceoil (talk) and Kafka Liz (talk). Nominated by Ceoil (talk) at 18:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC).



Article is long enough, new enough and the content looks well-cited (sources are offline, but I spot checked some bits where I could). The hook is cited, but I do have a couple of issues: it's a *long* hook with a picture. In fact it's exactly 200 characters. Is there any way to shorten it? A more important problem, I feel, is that the hook is a close paraphrase of the direct quote from the source. Can it be directly quoted? Or re-written to remove the closeness? Happy to discuss any of these issues if I am incorrect (it's been a while since I did DYK!). --Errant (chat!) 21:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC) ALT1: ... that 17th century reformist defenders of Giambologna's 1571-73 sculpture of a woman bathing (pictured) justified her nudity by identifying her as either Bathsheba or Venus? Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You and me both Errant.


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I think that works, thanks! Happy to sign off on it. --Errant (chat!) 08:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)