Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Antoinette with a Rose

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette with a Rose

(

)

Marie Antoinette with a Rose by Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun

~~... that the previous portrait that illustrates Marie Antoinette wearing a muslin dress before Marie Antoinette with a Rose (pictured) was painted, is the subject's favourite dress?~~ Source: "Vigée-Le Brun presented notably a new portrait of the Queen wearing the “gaulle” or “blouse dress”. Adapted to Parisian fashion by the dressmaker Rose Bertin, this muslin dress was the Queen’s favourite one during her stays at the Petit Trianon, away from the court. The visitors of the Salon were shocked by this portrait: in their view the Queen was not dressed as befitted her rank. So the painting was quickly withdrawn. Vigée-Le Brun then quickly painted a second portrait to be exhibited before the end of the Salon." Google Arts & Culture

Reviewed: Theodolinda Hahnsson

Created by JeBonSer (talk). Self-nominated at 01:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC).

Length (just barely) and reference verified ... however:

How sure are we that Google Arts & Culture is an RS? Mightn't we be better with the original text from Versailles if it's available, or from a reputable art site or book?
I think the body text should be rewritten a little more so it doesn't use so much of the same phrasing as the Google page. It passed a copyvio check, but still ...
And frankly, this hook would be better off for an article about that previous painting. Or rewritten to be more about this one. As it is it's like we had an article about a building and a hook about the one next door to it.

Daniel Case (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

ALT1:... that Marie Antoinette with a Rose (pictured) is a substitute portrait for the unsuccessful previous portrait painted by Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun during the Salon exhibition? Source: Google Arts & Culture JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 14:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, that takes care of the third issue I had, but not the other two. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Pointing out that JeBonSer's talk page shows five DYK credits; a QPQ will be required. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, the submitted QPQ review was previously used on Template:Did you know nominations/Portrait of Madame Jacques-Louis Leblanc, which was promoted to the main page on June 9. As a QPQ may only be used once, the one here cannot be reused and a new QPQ review will need to be performed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Older reference was now replaced with the original reference from the Palace of Versailles with additional new references from other sites and a new QPQ was provided. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@JeBonSer: OK, but per BlueMoonset above you still need to do another QPQ and post the link here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: QPQ: From St. George's Basilica, Prague to Theodolinda Hahnsson. The current provided QPQ is not still used. See the difference of my edit here. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 18:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

JeBonSer, even though you have officially changed the references, the actual prose is still unchanged, which means Daniel Case's point about needing to deal with the overly close paraphrasing from the Google source—putting the material in your own words while remaining accurate—still has to be done. Close paraphrasing is a very serious matter. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Daniel Case, I have already rewritten the article and the information is still intact and accurate. The problems are all resolved now. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 08:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, Earwig finds one huge copyvio, but that's someone quoting this page, and the rest are good. But move that other picture down and right-justify it because otherwise it's an awful-looking violation of MOS:SANDWICH. And I want to know what @BlueMoonset: thinks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Case, JeBonSer, the article currently fails the length requirement; it has 1401 prose characters after some needed copyedits, below DYK's minimum of 1500 prose characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Daniel Case, the article is eligible now because I add some phrase on it and the prose character now is exceeding 1500. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 18:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

JeBonSer, I have no idea what the newly added sentence is trying to say. You need to be clear in your writing, if you wish the expansion to be accepted. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: The new sentence has now been cleared. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 03:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

JeBonSer, it is not clear, and it's troubling that you think it is. I'm going to ping Surtsicna and Johnbod, both of whom have done cleanup edits on earlier versions of this article, to see whether they can help. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Done, I hope. I haven't done a recount! Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod. The article still exceeds 1500 prose characters. Daniel Case, up to you to decide whether this meets the DYK criteria. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: how we lookin'? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, good now. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P5