Talk:Lucy de László

Did you know nomination

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 Duonaut (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Lucy de László by Philip de László

• ... that this painting of Lucy de László was painted by her husband (who wasn't allowed to marry her until he'd painted some notable portraits)? Source: https://farmleigh.ie/portrait-of-lucy-de-laszlo-by-her-husband-the-artist-philip-de-laszlo/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Longworth
  • Comment: I think the hook is the painting, (maybe someone can think of an alternative but the painting is amazing imo)

Created by Willthacheerleader18 (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 11:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - ?

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - pending
Overall: Article is looking good, but there are some minor issues. Will go into detail below. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleader18: Issues I have:

• This part "Guinness was granted permission to marry him, and the two wed in 1900. Her husband, who was raised Jewish and converted to Catholicism, converted to Anglicanism in order to marry her" still needs to have an inline reference.
• We need a (pictured) in the hook following her name.
• The hook is not very interesting as written, and more importantly not really about her, but her husband. It's nice that he painted her, but what do we learn about Lucy de László? Barely anything. I'd suggest rephrasing that so it puts more emphasis on her life. Like that they met while studying (so we learn that she studied and wasn't just married off), was of nobility while he wasn't, or that he did not only paint her, but also the Austrian emperor and the pope before being allowed to marry her? I'll think about how to write that, but maybe you can also come up with something.
• I've also found this book which goes into some detail on their later life, when she apparently had some international correspondence, their family was questioned, and also she lost her nationality on marriage (?). You can probably decide better what would fit into the article, but I think there's some interesting things in there. From what I could find the publisher seems reliable. (On the husband alone, the Guardian also reports here.)

I agree on the picture btw, it looks splendid. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

(I just realized this was nominated by @Victuallers, not the author, so pinging again.) --LordPeterII (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peter, that hook is what interested me about her as without this fact/picture she is mostly "daughter of" and "wife of". Maybe your new source reveals more. There are models who have their own articles and I'm intrigued that she they took any notice of being told not to marry - I don't think thats just about him. Is there any point in putting (pictured) after a hook that says this picture? I'm off on holiday so please assume this nomination is withdrawn unless someone else wants to offer a hook and QPQ. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Indeed, wife and daughter alone are not what we should focus on. I missed the this painting part. Let me try to come up with a slightly different hook then:

• ALT1 ... that Lucy de László was painted (painting shown) by her husband whom she met while studying, who wasn't allowed to marry her until after he had painted the Austrian emperor and the pope?

It's worded a bit cheeky, as of course painting these exact people wasn't the requirement, but he nevertheless was only permitted afterwards since it meant he was famous/respected.

As for withdrawing, I'd be saddened (although I understand and wish you nice holidays). Maybe @Willthacheerleader18 you are interested in pitching in as the author? --LordPeterII (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Victuallers, the hook you proposed would have run afoul of WP:DYKSG#C9, No parentheses in the hook unless absolutely unavoidable. The (pictured) (or equivalent) for the image slot is an exception., so some rewording was inevitable. Might I suggest ALT1a as addressing some other issues, though a QPQ does have to be provided by someone:

• ALT1a ... that Lucy de László was painted (portrait shown) by her husband, whom she met while studying, but they were not allowed to marry until after he had painted the Austrian emperor and the pope?

However, if the hook is to run as is, a source will have to be found that places the portrait of Pope Leo XIII before the wedding occurred—all we have is the date, 1900, for both. If that can't be found, "and the pope" will have to be deleted. Indeed, the year of their marriage is unsourced at present, and would need to be so for the hook to run at all. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Good catch, I was under the impression there was a connection based on the prose currently in the article. However, you are right, this was only inferred by me and is not in the sources. Indeed, I have found this, which gives several details needed, also correcting the children to five (btw, their number in the husband's article is currently sourced to a picture?!). I don't have time for this right now, but may return later for some adjustments. And yeah we need a different hook, because the permission to marry apparently dates to 1898. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: They had six children, but one died in infancy. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleader18: Ah I see. Do you have a source where this is explained? Since you have written the article, you might know where to find it; I couldn't. Also, again the question: Would you be interested in getting this to DYK? Because the article would need a few fixes for that (for example, a citation for the wedding and children). --LordPeterII (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleader18: Hmm, I find it rather annoying when I ping people, and there's no reply although they are around and editing Wikipedia (although maybe you missed the last ping?). I realize that you didn't nominate this, but since you replied previously here, please just say if you are not interested in this DYK nom. As for Victuallers, you are also still not interested in keeping this nom? I rather like it, but I don't want to take over responsibility for yet another article I was actually going to only review. So, I'm going to close this if needed. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: I apologize, I did miss the last ping! I will look back at my sources and see if I can find it there. I am interested in keeping this nomination. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleader18: Nice! Let me know when you are done, but no pressure. I just didn't want for this to become stale and fail silently. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I have lost interest after returning from hols. I was about to withdraw it but spotted that Will would like to continue. I have noted this to help (QPQ enclosed) Victuallers (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Thank you! Yeah all good, you're free to roam elsewhere now ^^ –LordPickleII (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleader18: Hey, checking in – have you found time yet? A QPQ was provided, but the uncited part remains. As do the issues with the hook, for which I'd be grateful for suggestions. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: Hey! Here is the link about their children: "Together they had six children, five sons, Henry, Stephen, Paul, Patrick and John, and a daughter, Eva, the second child, who died in infancy." [1]. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: And here is one for the conversion to Anglicanism: "At first the couple resided in the large turreted gothic studio house de László had commissioned in Pest in 1897. Three years later they removed to Vienna where de László converted to Anglicanism in the Legation Chapel. He had promised Mrs Guinness to bring up his children as Anglicans and Englishmen and in 1907 the de Lászlós decided to put down roots in London." [2] -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this okay now? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Not yet, no. @Willthacheerleader18: Good, the sources will be usable. Can you add them to the article? I'm really short on time atm. Also, we are still lacking a usable hook, all the others have been shown to be incorrect after careful study of the sources. Any ideas? Without a hook, this nom is doomed. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello @LordPeterII: & @Willthacheerleader18: - I've added the references to the article (I know what its like to get busy) & how about this for an ALT:

• ALT2 ... that portraits of Lucy de László with a violin (one portrait pictured), painted by her husband, are recognised as some of the first examples of portraiture to include womens' talents in them? "Including portraits by celebrated artists like James Jebusa Shannon, Philip de László, and William Orpen, these collections were among the first to celebrate female sitters for their academic achievements and leadership ..." https://doi.org/10.16995/ntn.3353 Lajmmoore (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • For some reason, ALT2 was added with its text already struck out, which I imagine is not what proposer Lajmmoore intended. Pinging reviewer LordPeterII to take a look at an unstruck ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: Ah, thanks for pinging me, and for fixing that! Somehow I (again) completely forgot that this was still in the pipeline. @Lajmmoore: Many thanks for adding the refs and suggesting a hook! It's likely the best we can come up with in this context. Actually the accuracy of the hook becomes clearer when taking into account the Farmleigh source as well, which explicitly mentions that the violin portrait is such an example of womens' talents that the Tedbury source speaks of only generally. Unsure if "her husband" should have a piped wikilink to Philip de László or not, leaving that decision to the promoter.

Approving ALT2 (only made some slight ce adjustments), striking the others. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

To Prep 7