Template:Did you know nominations/Album primo-avrilesque
- 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) 10:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Album primo-avrilesque
[edit]
- ...
that an 1897 monograph by French artist Alphonse Allais included the painting Negroes fighting in a cellar at night (pictured)?- ALT1:... that an 1897 monograph by French artist Alphonse Allais included the painting Dance of dusty drunks in the fog (pictured)?
- Comment: I am nominating this for an April Fools hook on behalf of the article creator.
Created/expanded by Theramin (talk). Nominated by Gatoclass (talk) at 07:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. However, the second paragraph under "Background and reception" lacks a citation, per Rule D2. I prefer ALT0; however, the hook fact needs some kind of inline citation in the article. All images in article freely-licensed. A QPQ is needed for this nomination; I'm happy to submit one of mine: Template:Did you know nominations/Wayzata Bay Center. Yoninah (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Yoninah. I took a look at the uncited paragraphs in this article myself before nominating it, and decided that the works of art themselves qualify as cites, because the works of art and the artists are given in-text. Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: I'm sorry, I'm having trouble following your reasoning. Are you saying that because there's an image of Negroes fighting in a cellar at night on this page that this verifies that (1) Allais painted it and (2) it's in the monograph? Also, what about the cite for some of the information in the 2nd paragraph under "Background and reception"? Yoninah (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Yoninah. I took a look at the uncited paragraphs in this article myself before nominating it, and decided that the works of art themselves qualify as cites, because the works of art and the artists are given in-text. Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- The majority of the citations are from the album itself, not from other sources, which is extremely problematic. Also, the article mentions the connection with Kazimir Malevich's Black Square but doesn't tie in with the recent controversy around that work, which should be a given b/c of the painting's title.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe the sources describe them as prints, not paintings (well, apart from the original white one, which is a blank piece of paper, although I believe the frame in the album is printed; I've not inspected an original: perhaps they are all just coloured bits of paper stuck in a book; the cited sources don't say: do you know any better?). Manifestly they are all included in the album, a scanned copy of which is available online from the BnF, but others are available in other libraries to judge from WorldCat. <snip> the prints are also mentioned in many of the cited sources, and I've added some more sources just now. <snip>Theramin (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- I said extremely problematic b/c I don't believe you have enough citations independent of the subject itself for what will be a controversial DYK. The citation I gave above (repeated here) specifically mentions the album primo-avrilesque and ties it in with both Kazimir Malevich's Black Square and racism. Your call whether to consider adding this but I believe the article is lacking without more citations and context.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yoninah, Theramin has added some additional cites, care to look again? Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Theramin, those new sources meet WP:RS perfectly. @Gatoclass: I'm just wondering if you would consider using the white, blue, or red prints instead, as those are all well-cited in footnote 9? Otherwise the black and gray prints are posted on the page, but are not cited in the article. Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I need to apologise for my hasty words above, which I have now removed. On reflection, the Malevich information is relevant, and I've added it in. Regarding the grey print, if you don't want to use the book as the source for its own contents, they are all listed, for example, in Welchman, p.106-108, with the French titles and English translations. You could make a case for using any of them. Theramin (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The image itself is in the article, and I think that's sufficient as a source. I think the two best prints by far are the negro and drunk prints, because they are neutrally titled (and because both might credibly be what you see in the circumstances described). The others are just far-fetched and silly IMO and will alert the reader to the fact that a joke is intended, and that is counter to the purpose of April Fools, which is to fool the reader momentarily into thinking something that isn't so. Gatoclass (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)