Template:Did you know nominations/Jun ware


 * 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) 07:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Jun ware

 * ... that flowerpots for the Ming emperors were made in official Jun ware (example pictured)? Source: "shapes designed for the growing or display of flowers", Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, p. 102, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705
 * ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link], or briefly cite, the source)
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1994 Imam Reza shrine bomb explosion in progress - queries raised. points cleared. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 21:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol voting keep.svg 5x expansion verified. The timing of it is dubious by a strict reading of the DYK rules (it took just over seven days from the beginning of the expansion to the point at which it reached 5x, and the nomination was made nine days from the beginning of the expansion) but I think we frequently afford some slack to nominators in cases like this. The pictured artwork is in the public domain itself and the image of it is properly licensed. Earwig found significant overlap with https://collectionist.wordpress.com/jun-bowls/ but this appears to be a site that copied text from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article, rather than vice versa. Many footnotes repeat each other and should be re-used via the name parameter of the reference markup; this is not required for DYK, but it made it difficult to match the "Vainker 102" source in the nomination to the corresponding footnote in the article. In any case, the hook claim appears appropriately sourced, as does the rest of the article, taking offline sources in good faith. QPQ done. Good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! NOTE TO LAST MINUTE TINKERERS: If you are unable to resist the temptation to suggest a "better" hook after promotion, at any of the many venues that seem to exist to indulge these urges, please at least have the courtesy to let me know. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)