The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Allen3talk 01:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I urge that this hook be run on New Years Day, for two reasons: 1) The idea of big/revolutionary changes fits with the welcoming of a new year; 2) Many people resolve at the New Year to make beneficial personal changes, such as to start a practice of meditation/contemplative prayer, which is a main theme of the book (as discussed in the article, though not in the initial hook, though ALT versions could be prepared if needed).
Created/expanded by Presearch (talk). Self nom at 08:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Article passes DYK checks and is well sourced. The hook has shock value, so it is ok. People will click on it. I opened up the lede spacing and it is ready to go as a DYK. But the image leaves something to be desired in that the atom symbols will get confused with the Einstein reference at first, the orbital theory of atoms as suggested by the image was not due to Einstein. So very good article, but I am not hot on the image - which was not due to Easwaran anyway. Another image will help, say the cover of the book itself. History2007 (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, an alt hook/image along the lines you suggest would be below. But perhaps the problem with the original image not so bad? I suspect that most readers would not know enough physics to interpret the atom symbols as representing the orbital theory of atoms. I bet most would just view it as a general iconic representation of something new discovered in 20th century physics (with Einstein as a driving force). And compared to the nun/atom image, the book cover has less "shock value" (so to speak) and might draw correspondingly less attention (or might not be run with the hook). So I'd be interested in opinions from additional editors before a final decision is made between the original and alt hooks/images that we may come up with. If anyone has a suggestion for an better image that blends the two types of discovery, I could potentially construct such an image. At any rate, here follows an alt along the lines History2007 suggested -- Presearch (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
ALT1: (please see ALT2, below, which has an image that is unambiguously used in the article, unlike this image)... that Easwaran's book Original Goodness reports a discovery it calls "as revolutionary as Einstein's theories," while commenting on the Beatitudes of Jesus (pictured)?
(see comments below - hook has been altered to fit new image)
Question/comment: the (added text in bold) painting used for the book cover doesn't show up well small. One possible fix would be to crop substantial portions of it to make the mother and child larger and more visible. Would it still be kosher to call this a "picturing" of the book? BTW, the book cover, as the book itself states, is derived from Adoration of the Child (Correggio) (1526). -- Presearch (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks good and better than before. I think it is ready to go, no change is needed. Think of it this way, it is there for a few hours, then the party is over. The hook is catchy and no need to worry about anything I think. History2007 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
In response to the helpful reminder from User:Hammersoft that we can't use fair use mages such as the book cover, I have tweaked the image to involve the painting used for the book cover, rather than the book cover itself. I think this is still an alternative meriting consideration. This image could also be cropped to make it more visible when small. But does this run afoul of the rule that hook images are supposed to be present in the article itself? To me this seems close enough that common sense (or WP:IAR) would allow it... but what does User:Hammersoft think... is this an option?. -- Presearch (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
A third alternative image might combine praying hands (e.g., Durer or here, cropped with an image of a galaxy. Such an image could be substituted for the praying nun with atomic symbols in the article, and also used to represent attunement to transformative power. This image could accompany the original hook. True, the image is not terrifically targeted in evoking Einstein's theories, but I think that's OK because most readers won't know a great deal of physics. What do others think is best among these various possible options? (personally I think any could work, but some might work better and draw more interest) --Presearch (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually you can use any image you like. Most readers do not know the history of the orbital model, as you said. I do not mind. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, here's a second alt image/hook that implements the idea mentioned earlier. Any opinions about which is best, the original (with nun/atoms) or these praying hands with a galaxy? This image could be substituted in the same place in the article. -- Presearch (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC) ALT2: ... that Easwaran's Original Goodness, commenting on the Beatitudes, reports a discovery it calls "as revolutionary as Einstein's theories" (pictured)?
Boy, you have artistic talent too. Pretty good. Could the hands have arms so they don't look suspended in the air? History2007 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, actually, the arms in the original, here were extremely hard to see - basically just black. Adding them would be just like blotting out a section of stars. But I kind of like the lack of arms. It makes the image more intriguing (great for a hook), and perhaps more universal (fewer particularities that limit whose hands it could be...). --Presearch (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Among the 3, I find myself leaning toward the galaxy image. It's more breathtaking than the atomic nun, easier to see than the book-cover painting, and doesn't have the painting's issues with fair-use &/or image usage by article. I've now included the galaxy image in the article, so it's legit to use it. Before long, unless anyone argues otherwise, I'll remove the atomic nun. -- Presearch (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It's done! - I've eliminated the atomic nun image from the article, so the Galaxy hook (ALT2) is the one that should be used, because the image that accompanies it is unambiguously in the article. -- Presearch (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
No problem, after Fukushima and all, better be careful... kidding. I think it is ready to go. History2007 (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)