Talk:Alonso Martínez de Espinar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)
Prince Baltasar Carlos in the Riding School by Diego Velázquez; Martínez de Espinar is in the right middle ground
Prince Baltasar Carlos in the Riding School by Diego Velázquez; Martínez de Espinar is in the right middle ground
  • Comment: Have to start this now because the Espinar page was created on 20 July; but the page on the painting is not ready for review, so please hold off for a few days (at least). Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Justlettersandnumbers and evrik. Self-nominated at 21:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • The nominator does not appear to have any DYK credits according to the QPQ check. Therefore reviews are not needed here. Flibirigit (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first bold-linked article (on the painting) is under 1,500 characters so is currently ineligible to be run as a DYK in its own right, but can continue to be linked (just not in bold) with the same hook for a single-article DYK on Alonso. Are you happy for me to complete the review on this basis or would you rather a little more time for expansion? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maculosae tegmine lyncis, thank you for this, please excuse this late reply – I've been caught up in other things. My idea was to make this a double; I'll try to develop the painting article a bit in the next week (there's plenty to say, it just needs time to say it). If I haven't done so by 19 August I'll either go with the single DYK as you kindly suggest, or withdraw this completely. Is that OK with you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flibirigit, I do have a number of DYKs, I've no idea how many; none of them is very recent. Do they "expire" in some way, allowing me to start again as a virgin, or is the QPQ tool playing up? I had assumed I would need to do two QPQs for this nomination. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would like to do reviews, please go ahead as the DYK project can use all the help it can get. My statement simply meant I could not find any evidence of previous credits requiring QPQ. Flibirigit (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No QPQ still needed, right? --evrik (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: approval template completed once but applicable to both articles; AGF no qpqs, good to go, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two or three QPQs will be needed, depending on whether this is a double or a triple. The QPQ tool doesn't work when nominators move old talk pages to other page names and then create a new talk page with the standard name in its place, since the history starts afresh each time: looking back through 2016 I see at least eight DYK credits. (The most recent, Template:Did you know nominations/Humphrey Bradley (from last October), had a QPQ supplied by Justlettersandnumbers, so QPQs are needed here as well.) Justlettersandnumbers, are you okay with adding evrik's newly created article to the nomination and using the proposed hook? (If so, the image caption should probably be updated, though perhaps to drop the one name, since including both would be too long.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page for Juan Mateos checks out too, so, subject to qpqs and hook agreement (I'd ditch the commas), a triple whammy could work, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I donated three QPQs. --evrik (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • BlueMoonset, I'm more than okay with making this a triple, I'm delighted – and very grateful to Evrik for making that possible. Evrik, I feel bad that you donated QPQs, but thank you for that too; thanks also to Maculosae tegmine lyncis. I'd like to suggest an alt3, below – the fact that two men in the same painting both wrote important books on hunting seems remarkable enough to be mentioned. I suggest changing the image caption to "Prince Baltasar Carlos in the Riding School; Mateos and Martínez de Espinar are in the right middle ground", but if that's too long then please trim however you collectively judge best. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justlettersandnumbers, in multiple-article hooks, only one bold link is counted in the total character count. The additional ones are free, so you're well under the 200-character maximum even counting "that" (which does count, along with the question mark, but not the periods). I've added "(pictured)" to the ALT3 hook. I've adjusted the templates above to account for the new article; Maculosae tegmine lyncis, if you're happy with ALT3, can you please add the appropriate tick below? The three QPQs have been provided (see above). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
: the approval template now relates to all three articles, the various hook facts all corroborated in at least one; not sure how it works, but should more than one person get the DYK credit, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, good to go with ALT3, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
are you thinking of an addition to this hook along the lines of: the latter identified, also in Velázquez's Don Juan Mateos, thanks to a portrait engraving in his treatise by Peter Perrett? (Also, if so, would this mean the new dyk template would not need a separate review?) Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4a checks out and adding ALT5 - just need the go-ahead from Justlettersandnumbers, the original hook creator, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck ALT4a because at 279 prose characters, excluding all but the first bold link and "(pictured)", it is far too long. ALT4b comes in at 210 prose characters using that bold link, but would be under 200 characters with a shorter bold link, so I think it could be allowed; ALT5 is under 200 characters. I find the wording of the identification confusing, however; I'd like to suggest ALT5a to revise the ALT5 wording by displacing "identified" to later in the hook:
ALT4b could be adjusted in a similar manner. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I like Alt5a. Can I approve it? Probably not. Suggesting Alt4c. --evrik (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BlueMoonset: I was alerted to this discussion by evrik, but all of these comments are my own. 5a is 162 characters, and 4c is 161 characters, if we account for the fact that only one bold link is counted. So both count as short enough. Portions of the hook fact are mentioned in all of the articles, with Juan Mateos (courtier) getting the closest to mentioning the full hook fact. The rest of the review is per Maculosae tegmine lyncis. It seems fine, but I'm going to ask for another opinion first before I sign off on this. epicgenius (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy for this to be six-fold if that's what Evrik would like, but as I said above I'd prefer that the curious fact that the two men both wrote treatises on hunting be kept in the hook if possible. Can someone cleverer than me come up with a wording that achieves this without losing clarity. If I've read the rules correctly, thirty or more characters could be gained by mentioning Mateos first. Anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALTX: ... that a portrait by Pedro Perete, Peter Perret his pa, placed Don Juan Mateos in Don Juan Mateos and Prince Baltasar Carlos in the Riding School (pictured), Velázquez's the twain, the latter also featuring Alonso Martínez de Espinar, another of the three most important writers on venery of the Spanish Baroque?
ALTXb ... that a portrait by Pedro Perete, Peter Perret his pa, placed Don Juan Mateos in Don Juan Mateos and, fellow Spanish Baroque venery scholar Alonso Martínez de Espinar alongside, Prince Baltasar Carlos in the Riding School (pictured), both paintings by Velázquez?
  • epicgenius, ALT5a has the venery fact that Justlettersandnumbers wants included. Indeed, ALT4b and ALT4c are the only hooks that don't mention it. I don't see anything wrong with having six-article hooks here, nor the venery. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • BlueMoonset, when looking at 5a, I put myself in the shoes as a typical reader. I had to look up what "venery" meant for this to make sense. 5a works, and I could approve it as well, but it might not be as interesting. The X hooks are also short enough to fit in DYK criteria, but even more convoluted - and not what I'd want to see as a reader. epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justlettersandnumbers, epicgenius, might we be able to use "hunting" in place of "venery" in the hook? The "Venery (hunting)" link for "venery" is actually a redirect to "Medieval hunting", an article that only uses the word "venery" twice in a quoted section, doesn't define or explain it, and doesn't mention "Spain" or "Spanish" at all. I'm proposing to replace "venery" with "hunting", if it helps (if not, I'm out of ideas):
I checked the articles for the two authors, and the (translated) titles of their books both have "hunting" in them. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, 5b could work. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Approval for Don Juan Mateos, Peter Perret, and Peter Perret can be found at Template:Did you know nominations/Don Juan Mateos and Peter Perret, which I just closed. What is the final verdict on this hook? Yoninah (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yoninah, I believe we're waiting to hear from nominator Justlettersandnumbers to see whether ALT5b is acceptable to them. The reviewer was okay with it, though held off from a formal tick while we wait for the nominator to weigh in. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm sorry, I seem to have taken my eye off this ball. 5b is not particularly clear or grammatical, and appears to imply that Mateos was identified in the riding-school picture through the engraving, which I don't believe is necessarily the case. I know this has gone on too long already, but as an alternative I suggest:
I think that's within the limit. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
: good to go (i.e., ship it, quick...), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alonso_Martínez_de_Espinar&oldid=1202833218"