Template:Did you know nominations/Saint George Killing the Dragon
- 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Article has significant problems that have not been addressed despite multiple pings; closing as unsuccessful
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Saint George Killing the Dragon
- ... that Saint George Killing the Dragon (pictured) was once placed at the center of the altar in Barcelona's chapel that was dedicated to Saint George? Source: "Conceived in the elegant, decorative International Gothic style, the painting was originally the center of an altarpiece dedicated to Saint George that was apparently made for the chapel of the palace of the Catalan government in Barcelona." Art Institute Chicago
- Reviewed: St. Nikolaus von Flüe, Wörsdorf
Created by JeBonSer (talk). Self-nominated at 03:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC).
@JeBonSer: This article is new enough and long enough. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and a QPQ has been done. The article could do with a copyedit, and I don't like the Bibliography section one bit. What is the point of it? It comes straight from the Art Institute Chicago website and doesn't seem relevant to an encyclopedia article; I reckon it is plagiarism and suggest you remove it. I am going to ask @Johnbod: for a second opinion on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh - as soon as you see "it is now currently displayed at the Art Institute of Chicago" (my bold), you know who the author is! That's despite me telling him only recently. I agree about the "bibliography" - a couple of recent ones (in English) in "Further reading" would be fine, but not this. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Per Johnbod suggestion I replaced the heading title from "Bibliography" to "Further reading" and I retain the English publications on the "Further reading" section. JeBonSer (talk | sign) 05:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Returning hook from prep as per discussion on the DYK talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The following were my comments at WT:DYK that didn't touch on the QPQ issue:
I am also concerned about the article's sourcing and use thereof. What makes the Google Arts & Culture site reliable (I've found basic fact issues with their articles before), and, for that matter, the Web Gallery of Art, which seems to have been created by a retired physicist and a computer scientist. (That WGoA entry reads as if it were taken, uncredited, from a book of paintings.) While I have no quarrel with the Art Institute of Chicago, I am concerned with how the material is being used: the article states, in Wikipedia's voice,
The artist also littered skulls and bones on the ground with lizards to make it look gritty.This claim of artistic intent comes somehow from the source'sMartorell also treated the ground, littered with bones and crawling with lizards, in a lively manner, giving it a gritty texture.
Once the article is pulled for the needed replacement QPQ, I recommend that it be given a closer examination before being passed again.
- JeBonSer, these issues need to addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- This needs more than a bit of a copyedit. Gritty--"to make it look gritty"? There is no antecedent for it. The sentence that starts "Dressed in a robe" is ungrammatical. I don't know how a scene can rise steeply, and that sentence has a comma splice. The next sentence has an unwarranted "however", and "this valley"--which valley? And "that separates from the foreground to the background"--what does it separate? "We can determine"--we don't do "we". I was thinking that might have been a copyvio, but it's not, it's an unsuccessful attempt at paraphrase. No, there is no way this should be on the front page.
Johnbod and Cwmhiraeth commented on the Bibliography, which wasn't, and is now a Further reading--first of all, I'm going to pretend I never read that "It comes straight from the Art Institute Chicago website", and pretend that I think that the article writer actually knows this material, which is what should have happened--so why, with that plethora of sourcing, is the author settling for three lousy websites? No, this is not OK. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, I had a look at what seems to be a very, very cursory review of St. Nikolaus von Flüe, Wörsdorf. Template:Did you know nominations/St. Nikolaus von Flüe, Wörsdorf is ticked off, without any real commentary. Now, that article is one of Gerda's and so it's a pretty safe bet that it's mostly unproblematic, but the reviewer really should have noticed a couple of things, and they didn't. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Marking for closure as unsuccessful. Nominator has not responded to any of these significant issues despite having been pinged on their talk page, though they have had time for a dozen edits elsewhere in the past week. A final call has been posted to their talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- This needs more than a bit of a copyedit. Gritty--"to make it look gritty"? There is no antecedent for it. The sentence that starts "Dressed in a robe" is ungrammatical. I don't know how a scene can rise steeply, and that sentence has a comma splice. The next sentence has an unwarranted "however", and "this valley"--which valley? And "that separates from the foreground to the background"--what does it separate? "We can determine"--we don't do "we". I was thinking that might have been a copyvio, but it's not, it's an unsuccessful attempt at paraphrase. No, there is no way this should be on the front page.
