Template:Did you know nominations/Treasures of Ancient Rome

Treasures of Ancient Rome
Created by Merlaysamuel (talk). Self nom at 20:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ... that in the BBC Four documentary Treasures of Ancient Rome, Alastair Sooke sets out to debunk the myth that Roman art is unoriginal?


 * Symbol question.svg Article is new, long enough, topic and hook are interesting. I've done some minor copyediting. The only problem involves the hook. In the lead paragraph is the statement that 'In the documentary Sooke sets out to "debunk the myth that Romans didn't do art and were unoriginal". However I can't find that quotation in the references. Moreover the article doesn't really flesh out this statement in the lead paragraph. There are helpful links to Wikipedia articles on almost all the major artworks discussed in the series, but what is lacking in the article is discussion of how Sooke analyzes these artworks to debunk the myth that Roman art was unoriginal. NinaGreen (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added external links to three reviews of the Treasures of Ancient Rome, two of which contain versions of the statement in the hook and offer analysis of how Sooke debunks the myth that Roman art was unoriginal. The third says there was no myth to debunk in the first place. These should assist you in adding material to the article to flesh out the statement in the hook, and to provide an inline citation for the hook. NinaGreen (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't find the quotation in the references because the references are merely to the documentary webpage, whereas Sooke says the statement in the documentary itself. How do I point to something being said in a video? I had already looked at the reviews you mentioned and had planned to add them soon under a separate section 'Reception'. He does get criticized because serious academic writing never wrote off Roman art and for a public programme he has to sound as if he's breaking new ground. Anyway, I'll add that bit to the article... Merlaysamuel : Speechify  20:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The reviews I added as external links contain the gist of the quotation by Sooke which you want to use as a hook, so you could provide inline citations to those reviews. The reviews also contain the material needed to flesh out the hook in the article itself. A reader of the article, looking at the hook, would ask: 'Unoriginal? What does that mean? Who are the Romans accused of copying from? And how does Sooke demonstrate in the series that the Romans didn't just copy from those other cultures, but were original in their artwork?' At present, the article contains a catalogue of all the major Roman artworks discussed by Sooke in the three-part series, but there is no explanation in the article of the hypothesis raised in the hook. Hope that helps. NinaGreen (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll work on it...-- Merlaysamuel : Speechify  20:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering whether an alternate hook might solve the problem. As you note above, there's some suggestion that Sooke's claim that he was going to debunk the myth that Roman art wasn't original was just an attention-getter. One review I read indicated that after making the statement at the beginning of the first program, Sooke then ignored the hypothesis for the rest of the series. I haven't seen the programs myself, but if that's the case, then perhaps it might be an idea to substitute another hook, perhaps involving Sooke's 'discovery' that the Capitoline Wolf comes from a different era than was usually thought, something you've already mentioned in your article. See In his first programme, Sooke generally focusses on republican era art, from Capitoline Wolf, which turns out not to have come from that era at all. NinaGreen (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. I was away. Alternate hook can work but I'm unsure whether Sooke's show was the first to point out the real age of the Capitoline Wolf. If it was, that hook can be used... Merlaysamuel : Speechify  01:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedia article mentions the scientific analysis which led to the conclusion, but says the Museo Nuovo had not yet publicized the evidence by May 2012. Perhaps the hook could focus on Sooke's having publicized new scientific findings related to the dating of the Capitoline Wolf? As I've said, I've not seen the program, so I don't know how Sooke handled the topic. Having seen the program, can you perhaps suggest wording for an alternate hook?NinaGreen (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, frankly speaking, the only hook I feel the most confident about is the present one. As for the hook about age of the Capitoline Wolf, it'd be unfair as it would suggest that Sooke's documentary broke the news whereas the matter has been doing the round of the academic circles for quite a while. Sooke himself says "recent research has thrown up a storm about the age of she SheWolf"(watch it here at 6:00). In my view, the current hook best captures the series because that is essentially he sets out to do: 'debunk' the myth. And as a blog review pointed out that he does not return to the question he has asked during the programme is simply inane, because each of the three parts begin by Sooke stating explicitly that he's setting out to dispel the long- believed myth. Of course, one can't expect him to explicitly state time and again during the programme "hence, I believe Romans were original". If anything, that'll be tantamount to spoon-feeding the viewers. I am afraid that is all I can say about it, but please feel free to change the hook if you still wish. I'm a bit busy these days and hence will not be constantly available. Merlaysamuel : Speechify  23:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, if the only hook you feel confident about is the original one, that brings us back to the problem I mentioned in my first comment, i.e. that 'The article doesn't really flesh out this statement in the lead paragraph'.WP:LEAD states that the lead 'serves as a summary of the most important aspects of the article', and that 'Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article'. As I understand it, this means that if the hook in the lead states that Sooke seeks to debunk a myth, there must be substantial coverage in the body of the article explaining (1) the nature of the myth and (2) how Sooke seeks to debunk it in each of the three programs, and that sort of substantial coverage isn't found in the article as it stands. One of the external links I added earlier provides this sort of information, stating, for example, that Sooke’s documentary groups the art into 3 programmes; how the Romans pioneered warts ‘n’ all realism, the artistic legacy of Rome’s emperors, and art during the fall of the Roman Empire. The realistic style of early Roman art gives us a unique insight into how these Romans looked and how they wanted to be perceived – as wise and experienced, including wrinkles and receding hairlines. Thus, in the body of the article, the paragraph on the first program could begin with a statement that 'In this first program Sooke demonstrates how the Romans pioneered a realistic style of portraiture' etc., and this could be followed up by a discussion of one or two of the art works which Sooke discusses to establish this point. Unfortunately that gives rise to another problem because I'm not certain that this blog can be cited as a reliable source. Perhaps another reviewer could weigh in on that point and help move this nomination forward. NinaGreen (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Another reviewer requested to weigh in on current review issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ok to go. The DYK rules require that the hook is referenced in the article, not that is "fleshed out" in the rest of the text, though I agree this would be good, along the lines suggested. The other issues should be copied to the article talk page. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If this resolves the issue, I'm fine with it. The reason I raised the point is that it was my understanding that articles nominated for DYK had to comply with overall Wikipedia policies such as WP:LEAD which I quoted above ('WP:LEAD states that the lead 'serves as a summary of the most important aspects of the article', and that 'Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article'). As there's nothing in the remainder of the article which deals with the statement made in the hook, it seemed to me that the hook should not even be in the lead paragraph as the article presently stands, and that the only way to fix the problem would be to provide material in the article which expands on the bare statement made in the hook. However, I'm still fairly new to DYK reviewing, and it seems I've perhaps misunderstood the requirements of WP:LEAD as they relate to a hook in the lead paragraph of a DYK nomination. NinaGreen (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement that I'm aware of that DYK articles comply with WP:LEAD; in fact, a great many DYK articles don't have sections, and the whole article is either one big lead or one big body. Complying with WP:LEAD is only a requirement when you get to Good Articles or Featured Articles. As long as the hook information exists somewhere in the article and is inline sourced where it is, that should be good enough for DYK. We can always suggest that they might want to improve their article in the way that you note, but not insist. If you can't find a requirement or guideline in WP:DYK or WP:DYKSG, then if a query at WT:DYK doesn't turn up someone with a citation, it probably doesn't affect DYK eligibility. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)