Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/David Hockney's portrait of David Webster

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Amkgp (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Portrait of Sir David Webster

(
)

Created by No Swan So Fine (talk). Self-nominated at 13:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Comment For a variety of reasons, it would be better to rephrase as follows:

Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting painting and destiny, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. I prefer the ALT, but think a comma is missing after London, or we could drop London. I am not happy with piping the title of the painting, because the name of the person portrayed would at least connect the ROH to the painting for those who know. No hook reader will get to know about the lonesome tulips and the "icily arrogant" scene ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Could a WP:FAIRUSE image of the portrait be added to the article? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
To the article yes, to the nomination no, if you have one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The image is already in Fair Use on the David Webster (opera manager) article, so it should be ok as Fair Use on this article - why it hasn't been added is unclear. I notice that there is no link back to this article from the David Webster article, and that neither article, not even this one which is actually about the painting, even once give the painting's official title.86.56.21.175 (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: This might be the wrong place to say this, but the title of the article should be changed to "Portrait of David Webster". The standard way of naming articles about paintings is to just title them with the name of the painting. In the David Hockney template at the bottom of the article, the title has actually been piped to "Portrait of David Webster", so you know that is what the article should be called, so why not just call it that? 86.56.34.181 (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I should have spotted that above. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The official title, as given by Christies is "Portrait of Sir David Webster", so that's what the article should be called, and it should be linked in the Hockney template under that name. https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/david-hockney-b-1937-portrait-of-sir-6285715-details.aspx 94.139.29.156 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I've moved it to its Christie's title...although Hockney signed it 'Sir David Webster with tulips'! There's a magnificent accompanying essay on Christie's which I shall expand the article from. Creating this article led me to start Nicholas Wilder, and I have two more Hockney articles in the pipeline! No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I will also add that as the auction at Christies is on 22 October (in 9 days time), wouldn't it be better to wait until after that, because this article and the hook will be out of date once the work has been sold and the sale price is known.94.139.29.156 (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
If we did wait, we could have ".. that the Royal Opera House, London said it had no alternative but to sell a painting by David Hockney for £XM to survive? Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, something like that, but as it is the auction that determines the sale price, rather than the ROH deciding what the price will be, I wouldn't word it quite like that. Other things of hooky interest might result from the auction - it might not reach the reserve price or if the buyer's identity is made public, it might be someone interesting, etc. Because of Covid, auctions aren't being held in crowded rooms as they usually are, and the way the auction is held could give rise to interesting hooks e.g." ... a painting by David Hockney, sold to keep the Royal Opera House solvent during the Corona crisis, was auctioned before an [almost] empty room." 94.139.4.117 (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I like the last idea! The ROH didn't specify a price. Now what about the article title? The painter should not be in it. We could change that now. For the hook, we can just wait for the reports about the auction. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I adjusted to Portrait of Sir David Webster in the hooks, - Mandarax, could you do your magic for the rest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Done. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Sold for £12.8 million. No mention of purchaser, naturally. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Sold for £12.8 million and only 8 bidders in the room - someone could perhaps use that info in a hook see https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/christie-s-hockney-sale-roh . Christies obviously wouldn't name the buyer, but they might "out" themselves. I note that the title still hasn't been corrected in the Hockney template.94.139.7.255 (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Gerda Arendt, will you be returning to this review, or should we find someone new? It's been four weeks since the most recent comment. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    I am waiting for a new hook proposal after the auction. Or was that empty roomexample a proposed hook? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt, No Swan So Fine, and Johnbod: I think this is a good one and is probably best if it gets sent to main page as soon as possible. Here is the ALT that was alluded to above and I believe can be approved fairly quickly: Footlessmouse (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes I thought that was acceptable to begin with! No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Not convinced yet, because it sounds as if the auction prize had been mentioned in the condition to survive. Also: we don't need "London" for attractiveness, - there's a link. Please rephrase. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Try again, I like this one way more because the sale has passed and adding in something about Covid, which is already in the article, gives it context. I am not sure on the reliability of this source, I don't usually edit these types of articles. I am looking for others, but I personally think ALT4 works well. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The reliability of the source? It was BBC News! No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Fine with me, but I'm not reviewing this. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Aw. I see what you mean, I like that hook. @No Swan So Fine: Any comments? Gerda was reviewing, I think there's still no conflict here since we ultimately just reworded the hooks that were given above. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
It's hoplessly clunky. The orinignal hook was fine. Just take out the London bit. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
No idea what you mean by "original" at this point. ALT2? I said why it's factually wrong, the ROH gave no specific price which would be enough to survive. I go to bed now, perhaps you can find some else to approve something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
This will hopefully steer our discussion awa from the complications of the sale. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest a slight variant on ALT6, since it's usually people rather than lighting who are considered "arrogant" and this is a portrait:
  • ALT6a: ... that the lighting in a portrait by David Hockney has been described as "icily arrogant"? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    I wonder if I should approve one of these once I suggest to use the fact, also because the quite sensational background and price are not even alluded to, - this tells only readers who already know Hockney that this is something special, and I have been told other names I could not rely on our general readership would know. If you tell me I may approve "my own hook" I am willing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    That's what I intended. You're a wonderful editor, and I'm sorry if earlier in the discussion we appeared at oddds! Thanks so much for your help with this DYK. No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    here you go ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/David_Hockney%27s_portrait_of_David_Webster&oldid=1013767526"