Template:Did you know nominations/Glover Prize

Glover Prize
Created/expanded by Shirt58 (talk). Self nom at 12:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that the Glover Prize, though limited to depictions of Tasmania, is the richest art award for landscape painting in Australia?



Review Article length and sources check out. Uses in line citations. However, it was new on 12 March, expanded a few days later, and may be untimely. Nice article. Well documented. The current "controversy" ('landscape of a mass murder') might be an alternative hook. Plagiarism checker shows it to be clean of copyright violations. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a (sort of) Tasmanian, I would find the alternate hook... well, what "The Mercury" said. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply I quite agree, and it is not to my taste. The nominated article states that "The 2012 award was controversial: the winning picture included a depiction of convicted Port Arthur massacre spree killer Martin Bryant in the landscape of Port Arthur." This is a bizarre "landscape", but the judges bought into it as a landscape and judged it the best. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply Rather like having a landscape of Oklahoma City complete with Timothy McVeigh getting into his truck. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a dispute or an unresolved issue with the sources right now. I think we should wait until that's settled.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)k
 * I disagree. The source only concerns the 2005 prize, and does not have anything to do with the rest of the article, which is well sourced and from independent sources. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection, it appears to me that there is no real dispute, you're right. There is the problem, though, that the article was started on March 12 and there was no fivefold expansion prior to the nomination. I'm not sure what the policy is on bending this rule, so I'll leave that up to someone else. The article itself looks alright in every respect.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Some people put dispute flags up at the drop of the hat. I'm glad that you recognize that the article is sound and well researched. At least, that's what I concluded. I would suppose the one section about 2005 prize could get an additional source. The five day waiver question is basically above my pay grade. But it is new material to wikipedia, and a well done, well thought out and fairly large addition at that. It is good to see an article of this import put out when it is mainly focused on Tasmania. So if the line has some wiggle room for interpretation and application, this is one where a fuzzy interpretation could give a good interpretation and some publicity to a deserving candidate. It is within the spirit of the DYK rules, even it is outside the letter of the law. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The spirit of the law also allows exceptions. Since Shirt doesn't seem to be a regular, I have no issues with giving him/her some wiggle room. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of a regular, but in no way a DYK regular. If you think a Bryant hook would be the way to go, that would still be fine with me: Wikipedia is not censored.--Shirt58 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant DYK regular. In other news, holy cow I'm on that list. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go with the original hook, which I find to be plenty interesting. Article is new enough (DYKcheck even shows a 5x expansion beginning in 20 March) and thoroughly sourced; I did not see evidence of plagiarism concerns. I see no value in turning this into a "controversy" hook. --Orlady (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)