Template:Did you know nominations/Large Blue Horses

Large Blue Horses

 * ... that Large Blue Horses (pictured), an oil painting by Franz Marc, features bright, rich colours, and curved lines?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bared to You

Created/expanded by Thine Antique Pen (talk). Self nom at 22:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)




 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough. Long enough.  Image has an acceptable main page copyright that I verified by viewing the links related to it on the info page.  Article is neutral enough. No plagiarism concerns.  Sources support article text.
 * Symbol question.svg Can an alt hook be proposed? The hook is kind of boring and you can see if in the picture.  Some of the information in the article also appears unconnected "Marc also worked with Vincent van Gogh."  This connects to the painting how? --LauraHale (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed that sentence.


 * ALT1: ... that Large Blue Horses (pictured), a painting by Franz Marc, was purchased by the Walker Art Center in 1942 with money from the Gilbert M. Walker Memorial Fund?
 * ALT2: ... that Large Blue Horses (pictured) by Franz Marc, was purchased with money from the Gilbert M. Walker Memorial Fund, which was used to buy 60 artworks between 1942 and 1948?
 * Thine Antique Pen (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Refs 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9 in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_Blue_Horses&oldid=517707639 this revision] are either unreliable, commercial, or self-published. Goodvac (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How, may I ask? Go over every single reference, and explain how each of them is either "unreliable, commercial or self-published." Also, where in WP:WIADYK does it not allow these type of sources? It only mentions having a reliable source to support the hook. I've removed some. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delighted to do so. The entirety of an article should be based on reliable sources, not merely one nugget of information (the hook). Criterion 4: "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources". Ref 1/9 is a self-published website, absent any indication of editorial oversight or peer review. Ref 4 is commercial—its primary purpose is to sell painting reproductions, so there is no reason to trust the information imparted as these are not experts. Ref 5 is a user-generated wiki. Ref 7 is self-published—no indication that the author of this site is an expert on the subject. Goodvac (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does allow commercial sources. If there is anything that says Wikipedia cannot have commercial sources, I would be extremely surprised. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Commercial sources' primary purpose is to sell products, so they would not have a system of editorial oversight in place. Goodvac (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)