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) 00:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
... that Rubens' painting Hercules' Dog Discovers Purple Dye depicts the wrong kind of snail? Source: "though Rubens gave the murex [snail] a smooth nautiloid shell instead of an upright spiny one" [1]
5x expanded by David Eppstein (talk). Self-nominated at 07:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC).
Long enough and expanded recently enough, references are fine, no copyvio (I've corrected two mistakes in the quoted source text). It feels, though, like there should be a link to murex somewhere in the hook, to establish the mistake that Rubens has made; something like "…depicts a shell like a nautilus, not the spiny murex used in dye-making?" That's still under 200 chars. We need to be careful with the wording: a nautilus, which is what Rubens seems to be depicting here, isn't a snail; it's a cephalopod. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC) (P.S. apologies if I'm being too picky, it's my first review.)
You are using the wrong review symbol. The DYK?no symbol implies that there is something wrong with the actual article that prevents it being on DYK. If what you want to do is to suggest a new hook, you should do it like
But then since you supplied the hook we would need someone else to review it. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, still learning! To be fair, I saw the being used on other reviews that only had a problem with the hook. As per your suggestions, here's my alternative hook:
New reviewer needed, since previous one has supplied ALT1 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
This article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The ALT1 hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I came by to promote this, but before I do: @David Eppstein: would you like the hook to include a picture (either the painting itself or a cropped version featuring the shell)? Since the painting itself is in the public domain. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 08:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't include it in the original nomination because I thought that even at the size used in the article, the image was too small to be easily legible. I think it would be worse at the DYK thumbnail size. But maybe it would work cropped? I have uploaded a version to commons that might be usable for this purpose. I think we should include the dog as well as the shell. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I think the image is a bit wishy-washy. I really liked the original hook which I would have put in the quirky spot. When I first saw it I wondered what on earth the article was about and clicked on it to find out. I suppose one could have: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I like that better. It gets back to the original hook but avoids the mistake of implying that what it depicts is a snail at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't; just like the original hook, it still implies a nautilus is a snail. But please don't let my objection stand in the way of this being approved and promoted – it's been waiting long enough. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Logically, "the right kind of snail" is the dye murex, and the painting doesn't depict it, so the new hook is accurate. There is no "wrong kind of snail" that the image depicts (if we believe that it shows a nautilus instead), so your initial objection was also accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
New reviewer still needed, as both previous reviewers supplied ALT hooks. (My own preference is currently for ALT2.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Getting things moving by giving this a tick for ALT2. Although the hook is mine, it is really a variant of the original hook and doesn't introduce new facts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 6:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Long enough and expanded recently enough, references are fine, no copyvio (I've corrected two mistakes in the quoted source text). It feels, though, like there should be a link to murex somewhere in the hook, to establish the mistake that Rubens has made; something like "…depicts a shell like a nautilus, not the spiny murex used in dye-making?" That's still under 200 chars. We need to be careful with the wording: a nautilus, which is what Rubens seems to be depicting here, isn't a snail; it's a cephalopod. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC) (P.S. apologies if I'm being too picky, it's my first review.)
You are using the wrong review symbol. The DYK?no symbol implies that there is something wrong with the actual article that prevents it being on DYK. If what you want to do is to suggest a new hook, you should do it like
This article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The ALT1 hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I came by to promote this, but before I do: @David Eppstein: would you like the hook to include a picture (either the painting itself or a cropped version featuring the shell)? Since the painting itself is in the public domain. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
