Template:Did you know nominations/Ploughing in the Nivernais

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 Allen3 talk 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ploughing in the Nivernais edit

Ploughing in the Nivernais

  • ALT1: ... that he ploughs the fields with untold sorrow (pictured)? (source Drmies archive 78)

Created by Drmies (talk), Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) credited for the idea. Nominated by Hafspajen (talk) at 16:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC).

The painting was painted, oh really! A claim to be "teh best", - boring ;)
  • Minor tweaks, out of pure spite. BTW, it's a great novel-- "...vous n'avez donc pas devine que je vous aime?" Drmies (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am innocent. Contrary all claims. Hafspajen (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Drmies, see the edit to the page for the proper way to format foreign and alt names.
    Comment: That's a gorgeous painting. Thanks for showing it. At the same time, what's wrong with the second team? Did she f*ck them up on purpose to keep the patches of color in the right place? or just do them too quickly/badly? — LlywelynII 02:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Drmies, just drawing it to your attention in case you were doing several of these and didn't mind reducing the work for the people who come after. Regardless, thanks for the improvement. — LlywelynII 05:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • New article, long enough (4382 characters), I strongly support ALT3, for which the cited hook is good in the History section of the article; ALT3 is both positive and interesting. Since both Bonheur and Sand are women, this would be a good DYK for Women's History Month (March). The only close matches I found online were clearly other sites copying the Wikipedia article and not copyright violations by the Wikipedia article. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)