Template:Did you know nominations/Victorian painting


 * 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 Allen3 talk 09:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Victorian painting

 * ... that Victorian painting became so unpopular in subsequent years that Flaming June (pictured) was worth just £50 in 1963?
 * Reviewed: The Cubist Painters, Aesthetic Meditations
 * Comment: I've suggested this particular hook, as Flaming June is an image which still looks very striking at tiny mainpage size. This is a whopper of an article, so there are plenty of alternatives if for some reason this isn't suitable.

Created by Iridescent (talk). Self nominated at 19:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC).

ALT1 ... that Victorian painting became so unpopular that Flaming June (pictured) was worth just £50 in 1963? ALT2 ... that after Francis Barraud's Victorian painting His Master's Voice (pictured) was rejected by the Royal Academy, it became the trademark for RCA Victor and its successor HMV? The italics make a bit of a jumble, however -- not sure what to do about that. And there are a lot of choices for which aspects of the Nipper saga to mention and/or link. EEng (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "subsequent year" -- subsequent to what? EEng (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to the Victorian era. I would think that's implicit—I can't see anything to be gained by spelling it out as "... that Victorian painting became so unpopular in the years following the Victorian era that ..." – iridescent  16:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it's implicit, and that's why it's confusing -- one is led to think something deeper is being said. I'd suggest simply:
 * Sure, that works. – iridescent  22:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On reviewing the article, however, I think this might be much hookier:
 * Strongly oppose that. The invention of animal sentimentalism is in important part of the story of Victorian painting, but there's nothing distinctively Victorian about His Master's Voice, whereas Flaming June is the very embodiment of aestheticist classicism, a uniquely Victorian style. Plus, there's something deeply tacky about featuring the logo of an existing company on the Wikipedia main page without a very good reason, particularly one as controversial as HMV. – iridescent  22:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The original is pretty hooky, & the other already pretty well known, at least for those of us who can remember when they still used the logo - into the 1990s at least, according to our Nipper. Johnbod (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We really don't need a lot of stronging and opposing and stuff -- here at DYK things are pretty friendly and casual, so let's keep it that way. I know nothing about the controversy re HMV, but I'll take your word for it -- HMV could be dropped from the hook (leaving RCA) without any loss to its effectiveness. However, I think you miss the point of a hook, which is to get people to read the article. What I think readers will find appealing about ALT2 is the revelation that His Master's Voice had been a serious work submitted to the Royal Academy -- I'd always figured it was, from the beginning, just some advertising drawring. But if you think aestheticist classicism that apparently no one wants to pay for anymore will get readers to want to learn more about Victorian painting, then be my guest. EEng (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what we think. But you miss the point of the original hook, which is that Flaming June would very likely fetch over a million (£ or $) today, and very possibly several million. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At the very least in the tens of millions—Leighton's relatively insignificant Venus Disrobing sold for $1,900,000 a few years ago, and Flaming June is an order of magnitude more significant and probably earns that much each year just in gift shop souvenirs. Incidentally, RCA only had the rights to His Master's Voice in the Americas so any reference to them will baffle the rest of the world, and HMV is a British company which has had no connection to RCA since the 1930s. – iridescent  18:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait. So actually, values rebounded. Well, in that case the hook should make the reader understand that the dip has been followed by a rebound -- from everything to date I had assumed values went into the basement and stayed there. EEng (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideally, but since it hasn't been sold since 1963 I don't think we can fit and reference that in a hook. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Time for a decision here I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, including a decision on hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, take that. Hafspajen (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

( ALT[3] ... that Victorian painting became so unpopular that the iconic Flaming June (pictured) was worth just £50 in 1963? ) User:Iridescent, is there any problem here? Article is fine, hook is fine... Hafspajen (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First, ALT1 is just fine. Flaming June is a well known painting, and everything John stated is correct... Possibly could iconic or something could be added.
 * Hafspajen, this nomination still needs a full review based on the DYK criteria, something it has never had. In addition, if a seemingly non-neutral word like "iconic" is to be added to the hook, it needs to be properly sourced and included in the article per the example at WP:PEACOCK. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Finding a source for that or a similar wording would not cause any problems. You mean that this article was not checked at all? Hafspajen (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's right. Until I put the "review again" symbol up on March 29, the discussion had been entirely about getting the hooks right. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's no trouble at all to provide a RS that Flaming June is considered an iconic painting, to the extent that Vogue magazine can use it as the basis of a cover without explanation on the assumption their readers will get the reference. It's one of the most famous paintings of the 19th century. – iridescent  15:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Gosh. OK. Hafspajen (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On it. — Llywelyn II   17:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, having reviewed the reviews thoroughly, I agree with Eeeeng that HMV is by far the most interesting aspect of the article but concur with John's bod that we should ignore that since there's no reason to ever use Wikipedia as an advertising platform for companies we don't have stock in. (And even then, that just leaves bad reasons.) ALT1 is better than the original hook and there's no reason to include a gloss that it has since rebounded in value; most readers other than Eeeeng will assume that the original of any painting they recognize is going to be expensive. — Llywelyn II   17:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg More seriously, timely nom; gorgeously well-done page that has some minor and  (on the order of the do-it-yrself CPI computations) but all thoughtfully sourced and nothing policy-breaking; Earwig posts some big numbers but it's just from shared quotes or from spammed copies of this page; hook cites are offline but noted, reasonable, and taken w/good faith. ALT1 is g2g. [Pic (obviously) licensed. Link to GBP inserted for those unfamiliar with British currency. It still clocks in at about 10% of world trade thanks to the City, but we're at the point where "pound sign" means # to a sizable chunk of our readers.] —  Llywelyn II   18:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What OR? There's no DIY calculation anywhere on this page-the CPI figures use inflation and update directly from the CPI index. – iridescent \