Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Prussian Homage (painting)

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Prussian Homage (painting) edit

(
)

The Prussian Painting at the Sukiennice Museum in Kraków, Poland.

  • Comment: Article created in my userspace on 27 August and moved to mainspace on 2 September

Created by Krenakarore (talk). Self nom at 20:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Expanded by [[User:Piotrus}Piotrus]]

Hook review
Format Citation Neutrality Interest
OK Vmenkov (talk) OK Vmenkov (talk) OK Vmenkov (talk) OK Vmenkov (talk)


Article review
Length Newness Adequate
citations 		Formatted
citations 		Reliable
sources 		Neutrality Plagiarism
OK Vmenkov (talk) OK Vmenkov (talk) OK Vmenkov (talk) OK Vmenkov (talk) OK Vmenkov (talk) OK Vmenkov (talk) OK Vmenkov (talk)


I see a strange line: "The Prussian Homage was donated by Matejko to Poland during the meeting of the National Parliament in Lviv". The source mentions donation to [the city of] Cracow on p. 79 (after all, "Poland" was not a legal entity in the 1880s), and I don't see anything about the "National Parliament" (whose National Parliament, anyway? must wikify). -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Actually, the Polish version of the same recently-added reference says "w czasie posiedzenia Sejmu Krajowego we Lwowie" (on the occasion of the sitting of the Regional Sejm in Lwow), so they must mean the Diet of Galicia. Thanks for adding the ref, to whoever did it. I have clarified it in the article now. Anyway, an impressive painting; Repin must have been envious :-) -- Vmenkov (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to go now. -- Vmenkov (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Pulled from preps due to hook and referencing issues. Please give a more neutral hook and fully reference the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "A more neutral hook"? I would like to know what is not neutral about the statement that a famous painting will be - with both parties' consent - exhibited in a foreign country associated with the painting's subject matter? -- Vmenkov (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I couldn't have said it better. Support User Vmenkov's remarks on the subject. The article is already fully referenced. Krenakarore TK 23:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • At the DYK talk page, MSC expressed concerns that the hook is advertorial in nature and less than interesting. I have noted that "Currently deposited in the National Museum gallery in the Sukiennice Museum, in Kraków, it prominently features in the so-called Prussian Homage Hall." and a couple other things are uncited. The tone of the article itself is rather advertorial, as in the above italics. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Side note, the referencing is much better than it was when I pulled this. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Dear Crisco, what a headache this DYK is really. Quite an exercise of patience :-) ! Please tell me, what is so important about a line featuring on the main page for a few hours ?!! I can't get it man ! Here is toady's DYKs, now let's take a look:
  1. ... that the parishioners of St. Peter's Kierch (pictured) rented the church from the founder of Middletown, Pennsylvania, for one grain of wheat per year?
  2. ... that Captain William Lechmere missed the chance to command a ship at the Battle of Trafalgar by a single week?
  3. ... that the thin-leaved stringybark is so named as the bark fibres can be peeled off the trunk in strings?
  4. ... that after moving into the Bethesda Home for Boys at age seven, current San Francisco 49er Demarcus Dobbs moved in with his high school football coach's family in 2005?
  5. ... that, according to specialist midwife Comfort Momoh, 74,000 women living in the UK in 2000 had undergone female genital mutilation?
  6. ... that fossils of the extinct reptile Acallosuchus were found in a cigar box in 1983?

Only Nr. 5 might be called interesting due to the importance of the subject. What is so interesting about Acallosuchus found in a cigar box in 1983, or that a captain missed the chance to take part in a battle by a week !? GIve me a break will ya :-) ! Don't you think the rules for a nomination here have really gone way beyond the line ? C'mon ! Yesterday you said: "Should be one reference per paragraph", now this (?) ! Prominently here means: Big, very Big, actually Huge, (almost 8x4 meters) ! Of course it prominently features in the Prussian Hall (The historical significance of the painting says it all don't you think ?). And I see no advertorial thing either once "going to a museum is an educational activity", therefore: Encyclopedic ! What else could be more catchy for a hook than something that is actually happening as we speak ? Now c'mon Crisco, come here, give me a hug man ! You are my hero because if for me 1 article nomination has been more than enough, for you who have to cope with hundreds of nominations everyday and advise "such a pain in the neck" like me pal, you've gotta be a superman ! Krenakarore TK 11:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Every article has its own interest factor. I personally saw nothing wrong with the current hook, but another editor has expressed concerns that it is advertorial in nature. The referencing issue seems okay now. However, a less advertorial hook would be better. Perhaps ALT1: ... that in his Prussian Homage, Jan Matejko depicts himself as a jester? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Let's use this Alt1 of yours instead ok ? Can you put it there for me once you suggested it ? This whole "Simon is concerned" thing is really a pain in the neck, boy ! Now this 50 yo guy rests. Thanks dear friend, you're great. Krenakarore TK 08:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Problem with the ALT1 is that it tells you almost nothing about the painting or its significance. The original hook actually IS interesting, though you need a bit of background knowledge - the fact a famous painting of a German duke paying homage to a Polish king is on display in Berlin is significant. It's a bit like if Turner's The Battle of Trafalgar (painting) went up in the Louvre or something. So I'd go with the original. Volunteer Marek  10:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have no opposition to the hook fact, but an editor has noted that it "is a dull advert." and asked "Any chance for something more interesting?" Removing the dates would make it less advertorial. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it's for a museum exhibition, not a sale at Walmart so the fact that the hook lets you know it'll be happening soon doesn't bother me. Plus it makes the hook timely and relevant. I'd say just go with the original. Volunteer Marek  11:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have requested input from MSC. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The original hook is trivial (most paintings are exhibited somewhere, and that Polish one is in Berlin is not unusual at all) and is an advert, good or bad, free or non-free exhibition, doesn't matter. ALT1 is much better, thanks. It is probably Ok as is if the hook is pictured, but would need saying it is a painting (not sculpture or etc.) if non-pictured. Materialscientist (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually I would think that the original hook is quite interesting, considering the content and history of the painting. (At least this is how I would read it: Produced in the late 19th century, when half of the historical Poland was under control of German-ruled empires, the painting was meant to remind of Poland's long-past glory, when German kings had to pay their respects to Poles. After another century of turmoil, and the restoration of the Polish state, including its western lands, the presentation of the painting in Berlin is a part of an event meant to demonstrate, or to contribute to, German-Polish reconciliation.) -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Rather than arguing over the original, which will be a liability on the main page (you may want to trust me on this), could we take a look at ALT1 or suggest others? The quicker we have a consensus, the quicker this hook can move. The creator agreed with ALT1. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I see nothing non-neutral in original hook, but I agree it was uninteresting. I also agree with VM that the proposed ALT misses the main importance of the painting, and is potentially confusing (Matejko's portrayed himself as two characters there...). I propose some alts below. I've expanded the article. (PS. As my additions nearly doubled the size, perhaps I could be added a a co-author to this nomination)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • ALT 2: that Prussian Homage (painting pictured) by Jan Matejko was among the most wanted Polish paintings searched for by Nazis during World War II?
  • ALT 3: that Prussian Homage (painting pictured) by Jan Matejko is seen as one of the most significant paintings portraying the history of Poland?

Somewhere in those discussions that were/are raging on the DYK talk page I made the argument that in cases where the issue is one of a hook being considered "uninteresting" by someone, but "interesting" by others, the proper thing to do would be to refer to the nominator, who's probably best placed to make the subjective judgment call as to what is and what is not interesting about a particular topic. As I recall for the most part this notion was supported by most commentators at the time.

I also see nothing in the original that would constitute any kind of "liability" on the main page. It's neutral and factual.

Anyway, I'd hate to delay this article nom any further so, whatever. I do like Piotrus' ALT 2 proposal. Volunteer Marek  17:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Marek, above. (Actually something like "... that the Polish painting which the Nazis tried but failed to find during the WWII will be exhibited in Berlin later this year" may sound even more interesting, but I am fine with ALT2). -- Vmenkov (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no objections for that, if it can be done in the hook space limit. If we can make some people learn about the display and go and see it, why, that'd be great example of the educational role of a 21st century encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That would be advertorial, so probably not. ALT2 is approved. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Prussian_Homage_(painting)&oldid=1020946691"