Talk:Maison de Jeanne

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 SL93 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Maison de Jeanne

• ... that the 14th century house, Maison de Jeanne (pictured) was positively dated with the science of dendrochronology? Source: "The construction of the house has been dated to the 14th century...Dating a house in relation to the materials used has a name: dendrochronology"
  • ALT1: ... that the House of Joan (pictured) in Aveyron France, was built with corbelled upper floors to reduce the owners taxes? Source: "some people are surprised by the corbelled structure which is getting wider and wider until it was explained to them that at the time, the French already wanted to pay as little tax as possible and that they were relying on the floor surface of the building..."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Alfred the Great, Southwark

Created by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 17:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC).

• Article creation date versus filing date okay. Article length okay at 2329 characters (415 words) readable prose size. Article neutrality okay, sourcing mostly okay, no evident signs of copyvio. QPQ done. Hook length and sourcing okay and hook interest will be very good if an image can be used.

Re sourcing, the statement The name of the home which is (Maison de Jeanne) came from the last occupant of the home: an artist named Jeanne. needs a cite, since the name of the article is based on it. It would also be good to known when this artist last lived in the house – just prior to the 1995 purchase by the municipality or further back than that?

Re the image, the rationale for the public domain license on Commons is not at all clear to me. How is the source for this image an "Artist Recreation" and how can the author be unknown? This sure looks like a modern digital photograph to me. And for sure the image was not taken on 14 February 2022 as it states there. I think this image will be deleted from Commons as soon as someone notices it. The Connexion source in the article says the house was going to be open for visits during summer 2017; maybe some visitor then posted a properly licensed photo on Commons, or one with a compatible license on Flickr that could be brought into Commons. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Thank you for the review and the opportunity to correct issues. I have sourced the line about the name of the last tenant. Regarding finding the time period she lived there, I will continue to search but the information does not seem to be available. Regarding the image it was created in photoshop: I asked for a G7. I will continue to seek a different photo. If I cannot find anther image perhaps the article can run without? I can put an external link at the bottom. Thanks again! Bruxton (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: ... so I guess you were not able to find a usable image for this? I looked myself a bit but didn't come up with anything. I've checked a lot of articles on buildings of various areas and eras, and it's very rare to see one without a picture. So I don't know if this is a good choice for the main page or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: I made an image/rendering of the home. I cannot find a free one at this time, but readers can google search a photo of the building if they are so inclined. While it is helpful to have an image for a home like this, perhaps the rendering will be sufficient to portray the unique nature of the corbelled upper floors. Thanks for considering. Bruxton (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I eventually tracked down a CC-licenced photo on Flickr, by searching for the name of the town. (The image doesn't appear on a search for "Maison de Jeanne", for some reason!) --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: Cool. Please upload and render appropriate license. Bruxton (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Already did, it's up on the article. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Excellent work @Lord Belbury: – and at least I know why my Flickr search failed. @Bruxton: There might actually be value to including your drawing as well, perhaps on the left-hand side of the "Design" section, since it shows the corbelling a little more clearly than the photo does. But in any case, it's now good to go DYK-wise. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A source used for significant matters is a tourist info website which is not the most Reliable Source possible. It is used as the ref. for the term 'corbelled' which I suspect is a (fairly poor) translation of the original French "ses encorbellements aux deux niveaux". In English I would have said the upper floors were 'jettied'; on the Jettying wikilink a caption reads "Jetties in French are called an encorbellement and may be decoratively carved." Nedrutland (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Wasted Time R and Bruxton to resolve. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nedrutland: For now I have erased reference to corbel. It appears as a descriptor in several of the sources. Your suggestion of Jettying would need to find RS for inclusion. For now I have erased the use of that reference for one other sentence as well - It was replaced with a Huffpost reference. The source is now used to describe larger upper floors over a smaller footprint - and a sentence about the makeup of the walls. The reference can be replaced if need be. Bruxton (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There is still one 'corbelling' in the article. I also suspect this is a translation issue – indeed, the https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encorbellement article seems to incorporate both the 'corbelled' and 'jettied' meanings. I also think the tourist info site is no worse a source than any of the others in the article, none of which is very RS-y. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Thanks, I removed the reference to corbel which was in the lead. Bruxton (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R? theleekycauldron (talk

• contribs) (she/they) 17:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Didn't think I needed to checkmark it again, since I was fine with the way it was before these removals. But am now . Wasted Time R (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Timeline for dendrochronology

Not sure this lines up in the source as it's been written here.

The article currently implies that the house was dated as a direct result of its Imgur fame (The history and age of the home was unknown until 2017; someone shared a photo of the medieval home on the image sharing site Imgur and it attracted the attention of more than 1.5 million people in just two days.), but the source cited doesn't appear to say that: it says that the house appeared on Imgur ("en 2018") and also that the building was at some point dated to the 14th century (without saying whether this was done before, after or as a result of the Imgur fame).

Are there any other sources that say when and why the building was dated? And was the photo it posted to Imgur in 2017 or 2018? --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: The home appeared on Imgur in May 2017 and the home was dated by Christophe Perrault in 2018. According to the article by 9/10/2018 he was still awaiting the results. source Bruxton (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a better source. If the news article doesn't draw an explicit connection between the Imgur fame and Perrault researching the age of the building, though, the article shouldn't imply that one followed from the other. I'll edit out the implication. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Tax

I don't understand why the claim for tax is kept but Jettying is removed. There is no historical documents or evidence to suggest tax was ever the purpose of the design. The mention comes from a news paper, the Le Figaro which was founded in 1826, over 300 years after the construction of the building. Jettying dates back up to 2000 years ago. We seem to want to take the random word from a news paper with no evidence, vs a long standing proven building technique for construction. Either find solid evidence that Tax was the purpose, or keep Jettying comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.143.119 (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You have erased RS showing that the building was dated to the 15th century and changed it to the 14th. The newer RS showed the flaws in the preliminary dendrochronology report and dated it to 15th. You have also introduced an uncited claim while disputing the bit about the taxes which is cited to RS. Unfortunately we cannot say this is an example of Jettying without RS. Bruxton (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)