Template:Did you know nominations/Emil Fuchs (artist)
- The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Emil Fuchs (artist)[edit]
... that portraits of Queen Victoria and Edward VII (pictured) by Emil Fuchs made his work fashionable among London high society in the early 20th century?
Created by Storye book (talk). Self nominated at 11:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC).
New and long enough, about clearly notable individual. Many sources (mix of on- and offline); spot checks didn't reveal any copyvio or close paraphrasing issues. Many photos of artwork which is out of copyright due to age. About the hook; I don't find the sources saying exactly that his commissions for the royals made him popular in "high society", but more that he was popular in high society, including the royals. I might prefer a hook that more specifically focuses on the royals. But this may be nitpicking. I think source 5 (Tate) should be added as citation for the hook. The article should have more categories. Otherwise, good to go as far as I can see. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- And one thing I forgot: I would like to see in the Austria, Germany, Rome section what kind of artwork he focused on during that time. (But this isn't required to pass the article). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- Alt 1 ... that Emil Fuchs painted portraits of Queen Victoria and Edward VII (pictured) and became fashionable among London high society in the early 20th century?
- Source 5 (Tate) has been added as citation for hook, as suggested above. Thank you for spotting the problem with the hook. I had seen the original hook in a source which must have got lost. But the information in Alt 1 now fits the existing citations. --Storye book (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. One thing more though. I think many of the references needs to better formatted; some of them are currently bare refs. If they aren't published on a specific date, it's preferable to add which day they they were retrieved (or just the current day). I did this for one of the refs (Nb. 11 New York Times, 1929). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. One thing more though. I think many of the references needs to better formatted; some of them are currently bare refs. If they aren't published on a specific date, it's preferable to add which day they they were retrieved (or just the current day). I did this for one of the refs (Nb. 11 New York Times, 1929). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Reviewer needed to finish this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
This article passes the DYK criteria for newness and length. The ALT1 hook is well sourced and the image is in the public domain. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
