Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Antoine Pinchon

Robert Antoine Pinchon
Created/expanded by Coldcreation (talk). Nominated by Hallows AG (talk) at 08:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that Robert Antoine Pinchon was referred to by Claude Monet as a "surprising touch in the service of a surprising eye"?


 * Symbol question.svg Amply long, and new enough. Good coverage of the topic. However, I have some referencing/stylistic concerns. There are several unreferenced paragraphs and one that has a reference only for something not about Pinchon (I have added citation needed templates, and I was able to reference one of the paragraphs using a source cited for other points), plus the section on streets named after him. I found copyvio in the paragraph about Julia Pillore, and I also found some discrepancies and misplaced citations. Since a lot of the article is in a rather flowery style, some of it suggesting translation, and I cannot see the primary source, the Lespinasse book, I am concerned that there may be overly close translation from that. In any case some paragraphs could usefully be shortened or cut altogether (particularly the generalizations about the wars); I've done a little of this where I saw unnecessary duplication, and left a couple of hidden comments. The hook fact is referenced; I have moved "by Claude Monet" earlier in the sentence. But this needs additional references and pruning of peacockery, wordiness, and any over-close translation/paraphrasing before it's ready. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg At this point both Coldcreation and I have been over the article several times, adding references and trimming peacock language and unnecessary generalisations. At this point I am going to assume good faith on all the references to the book by François Lespinasse, although I was unable to check them for either accuracy or avoidance of close paraphrasing. I would still much prefer at least to have page numbers for all those references in case some reader does have access to the book, but I see no point in insisting those be added, and I believe that between us we have shortened the creative prose enough that it is unlikely any inadvertent overly close translation remains. As I said before, the hook fact is referenced (from sources I can see). So, good to go! Yngvadottir (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)