Template:Did you know nominations/Stipple engraving
- 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) 02:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Stipple engraving edit
... that stipple engraving was used in the eighteenth century to copy chalk drawings by use of acid and dots?
Created/expanded by Ruskinmonkey (talk), Johnbod (talk). Nominated by WereSpielChequers (talk) at 15:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, well written, and I found no plagiarism or overly close paraphrasing. I do think the mention in the lede of its becoming an "art in itself" should be explicitly returned to later. And I substituted a GoogleBooks link to the specific page in one reference and added a GoogleBooks link in another. WereSpielChequers, do you have 5 DYKs? If so, a quid pro quo review is needed. The hook is not the most interesting; isn't the fact that there was a colour reproduction process using stipple engraving more attention-grabbing? Also, I believe both article and hook are inaccurate on the chalk drawings. The cited source actually says that the results of the crayon method resembled "a chalk or crayon drawing" and that they were mainly used to reproduce "popular pastels by Watteau, Boucher and Fragonard." So I propose:
ALT1 ... that stipple engraving was used in the 18th century to copy pastels by artists such as Watteau and Boucher using acid and dots?ALT2 ... that stipple engraving was used in the late 18th century for colour reproduction, but was prohibitively expensive because only one impression could be made from each plate?- The article's statement about chalk drawings also needs to be revised to match the source. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think ALT2 is correct, or what the article or source says. Multiple impressions were made, but each needed very careful inking of the plate. And Verhoodt's comments on various pages make it clear that were used to reproduce drawings. I don't think much of ALT1 either, and that fact is not in the article yet. Actually having looked at a number of more specialized sources I think he is simply wrong in saying it was "especially used for pastels", so it's just as well it's not in. I have added sources that support the original hook. Johnbod (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Yngvadottir. I review at FAC, but not DYK, and I'm assuming that the quid pro quo rules apply to writers of DYKs not nominators. I have written far fewer than 5 DYKs, this as with almost all of my nominations is of a newbie's work which I as a new page patroller thought merited a DYK. If people agree and Ruskinmonkey then starts submitting their own DYK nominations then I would expect that the quid pro Quo rule would kick in after their fifth. But the DYK rule says "Reviewing another editor's nomination is part of the nomination process for self-nominations", and this is not a self nomination. ϢereSpielChequers 11:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see now that nominations of others' articles are specifically exempted from quid pro quo—I'd forgotten that, sorry. Johnbod's additions are great, and I believe he should get a co-credit; I'm afraid my ignorance of the field was showing. I'm striking out ALT1 and ALT2; I was clearly misled in the second case. The article does now support the original hook; however, the first sentence of the added paragraph, on the reproductions of red chalk drawings by artists such as Watteau, needs a reference, and I don't have access to the A. Hyatt Mayor source, which appears to be the one covering it. Please add a ref to that sentence with a specific page number; I have found something confirming that Demarteau made 266 engravings after Watteau but not something referencing the entire statement that they were sanguines using stippling. I also think the sanguine fashion makes the hook more interesting, so I propose:
- ALT3... that stipple engraving was used in the 18th century to make accurately sanguine reproductions of red chalk drawings by artists such as Watteau? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've given Johnbod credit for the expansion, I'm afraid I don't know enough about the history of Art to quibble at his wording. So I'm quite sanguine abut the process now. Though I did think that the originals were more sanguine than the copies, and I still like the idea of ancient dot printing. May I suggest a hybrid:
- ALT4... that stipple engraving was used in the eighteenth century to copy sanguine drawings by use of acid and dots?
- ϢereSpielChequers 18:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done, covers ALT 4 too I guess. Mayor has no page numbers, just image numbers. These two are on the same page, but Griffiths covers it too. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks both! AGF tick rather than green one since I haven't seen the exact statement that there were 266 sanguine stipple engravings. I think either ALT3 or ALT4 - let the person who promotes it decide. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done, covers ALT 4 too I guess. Mayor has no page numbers, just image numbers. These two are on the same page, but Griffiths covers it too. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
