Template:Did you know nominations/Charles R. Chickering (artist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Charles R. Chickering (artist)[edit]

Created by Gwillhickers (talk). Self nominated at 23:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC).


  • Symbol confirmed.svg Size ok, no copyvios, timeframe okay. Inline citation for hook okay, but the wording is slightly different: source states sole-design credit for 66, co-design credit for 11. If this doesn't bother anyone else, then it's good to go.-Godot13 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there a QPQ?-Godot13 (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the source says '66 + 11', not 'seventy-seven'. Re: the 11 co-designed stamps: Sometimes minor modifications would be made in the artist's stamp designs (lettering, etc) which is covered in the body of the text, cited. Hook is a general statement in the lede. If anyone feels this is an issue I can always change "seventy-seven" to 'dozens'.

Re: QPQ This is only my 4th DYK nom' but I reviewed Upton Heath and Capture of the Dutch fleet at Den Helder anyways, just below this nomination under the same date. -- Gwillhickers 12:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg This is covered by the WP:OR page, which says that you are allowed to add two numbers together. The issue then is whether the statement is still accurate, I would say that "design" is general enough to include "co-designed" so the hook would be good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Amended above, seems good to go.-Godot13 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I am concerns that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "a basement in a chateau in Dijon he made medical illustrations of body-part wounds from cadavers brought in from the front for autopsy" with "the basement of a chateau in Dijon creating drawings of body-part wounds from cadavers brought in from the front for autopsy". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Have just reworded the phrase in question along with some general rewording about the article. If you see any other items I may have missed please let me know. -- Gwillhickers 10:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Another example is "graduated from this school in 1913 and soon sold his first illustrations to Collier's Magazine where his immediate vocational practice as a freelance book and magazine illustrator was assured" vs "graduated from that school in 1913, sold his first illustrations to Collier's Magazine the same year, and his immediate vocational fate as a freelance book and magazine illustrator was sealed". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Okay, even though the two passages were different in a couple of ways I further reworded the passage in question. ("graduated from this (or that) school" is a common phrase.) -- Gwillhickers 23:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)