 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Karl R. Free appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 October 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination
edit- 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 SL93 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the eagle designed by Karl R. Free for the original Whitney Museum entrance was uncovered in 2015? Source: Dunlap, David W. (2015-07-31). "A Trace of the Original Whitney Museum Reappears". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/nyregion/original-whitney-museum-briefly-opens-for-public-viewing.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
- ... that both of Karl R. Free's New Deal-era U.S. post office murals with Native American subjects have been challenged as offensive? Source: Multiple; see refs in article
Moved to mainspace by Jengod (talk). Self-nominated at 00:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC).
Article creation date versus filing date okay. Article length okay. Article neutrality okay, sourcing okay, no evident signs of copyvio. QPQ done. However I have concerns about some of hooks. ALT0 is okay. For ALT1, the article doesn't really say that the Washington mural has been called offensive per se, but rather that it isn't an historically accurate depiction because the visual models weren't right. As for ALT2, I wouldn't use that at all. The term "arch-conservative" is too unspecific (is it in terms of schools of art, or culture in general, or politics?) and the "Nazi sympathies" is too weakly sourced (an article by and interview of the same person, Laning) for hook-level prominence. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Can I just withdraw the latter two hook options, leaving non-controversial alt0? (If yes, is strikethrough or outright delete better?) jengod (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've struck ALT2. But I messed up on ALT1, as I see now that 'offensive' for the Washington mural is covered by the article text directly under the "Post office murals" heading section and its fn 35. (I was looking only under the "Washington, D.C." subsection.) So the nomination is now
approved for use, and I think ALT1 is the more compelling hook to go with. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've struck ALT2. But I messed up on ALT1, as I see now that 'offensive' for the Washington mural is covered by the article text directly under the "Post office murals" heading section and its fn 35. (I was looking only under the "Washington, D.C." subsection.) So the nomination is now
- It was a good note! I’ve expanded the both post office mural sections with additional info including detailing the specific complaints. TY Wasted Time R for the nudge. jengod (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Can I just withdraw the latter two hook options, leaving non-controversial alt0? (If yes, is strikethrough or outright delete better?) jengod (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
