Template:Did you know nominations/Kanō school

Kanō school

 * ... that the Kanō school dominated Japanese painting for four centuries, headed by members of the same family (pair of 17th-century screens illustrated)?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Gnathia marleyi

Created/expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self nom at 03:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I'm a bit concerned about ref #28, as it basically says "information exists but I'm not pointing at it", and the use of images in the article is a little messy—that lead image might be better served being split vertically along the white line and stacked as two images with a multi-image template instead, for example, and the caption that simply says "see text" should really have something standalone. The hook fact is evident through synthesis, which I'm not personally opposed to, but it might be worth adding a direct mention of the 400 years bit in the "Height of influence and decline" section. The hook itself is grand aside from this. GRAPPLE   X  22:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These are more GAR points than DYK points, not really bearing on the DYK criteria. I don't really feel a bunch of Japanese-only websites are useful to most, but I indeed point to where they are. The hanging scroll is so narrow that if you say anything else it goes to 5 lines of caption at once - I've tried that. Obviously virtually all the school's works have the most inconvenient or unusual dimensions for WP, but there we are. As the image here I think shows, stacking doesn't help these works, & it would lose all relationship between the tigers & the dragon. I'll look at the hook - I say "four centuries" with a touch of rounding up, as in truth they probably "dominated" for say 390 years.  Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to be more specific in the article, "four centuries" is still acceptable rounding for the hook. The narrow image's caption could simply be the piece's title and/or artist, though. GRAPPLE   X  23:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a ref directly at the hook (lead 1st line), which I should have done before. I don't think arithmetic is synthesis. I've added the title to the caption which is now 3 lines, & not looking good, I hope you'll agree. So I'll probably remove it later. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I trimmed out the "see text" as it's inferred anyway, which brings it to a better-looking two lines. Arithmetic isn't synthesis but the body itself doesn't actually include the start and end range in proximity to each other so the synthesis was finding the founding in one heading and the decline in another; the citation the lead covers this now though if you want to keep it that way (I'd consider it cleaner to remove the inline citation from the lead and just given an aside in the body to clearly state the range but personal preferences vary). I've amended ref 28 as I've now realised that "that article" wasn't a reference to the "Masters of Mercy" article in the previous ref but another wikipedia article, since it doesn't actually point to any specific source I've just replaced it with a "See also" section pointing to that article instead which accomplishes the same navigational purpose but seems a lot more straightforward; with that done we're now sound to go. GRAPPLE   X  00:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)