Talk:The Rape of the Sabine Women (Poussin)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Metropolitan Museum of Art

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of Art. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Metropolitan Museum of ArtWikipedia:GLAM/Metropolitan Museum of ArtTemplate:WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of ArtMetropolitan Museum of Art
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

A fact from The Rape of the Sabine Women (Poussin) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 January 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Poussin painted the abduction of the Sabine women twice (one pictured), once for a prince and once for a cardinal?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Rape of the Sabine Women (Poussin).

Did you know nomination

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 Lightburst talk 18:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

The Abduction of the Sabine Women, 1634–1635

... that Poussin painted the abduction of the Sabine women twice (first version pictured), for a prince and a cardinal? Source: (1) https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/437329 (2) https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010062438
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dragonesque brooch

Created by Ficaia (talk). Self-nominated at 07:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Rape of the Sabine Women (Poussin); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

I shall review this. ~~Because it is a longish article, I may have to part-save my review a few times, so please be patient if the review appears to be unfinished for a while. Thank you.~~ Storye book (talk)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thank you very much for this interesting article, clearly the result of careful research. And thank you for your extra curiosity, which brought about all those notes - just fascinating.

Just one point. Normally, I would say that the picture is not clear at thumbnail size, because unless you already recognise the story from the bolded text, you can't work out what's going on in the crowd. But there is something about those Old Master crowd paintings that makes you want to click on the pic to get a closer look anyway, so I still think it would work. If we get a second reviewer who would prefer a clear, cropped-out section of the pic, we can easily deal with that - old Romulus would make a lovely close-up, for example - though that quality of painting can bear any little extract, and still look good. Just to be on the safe side, and to give this nom a good chance of getting the picture slot, please could you suggest a preferred section for cropping out, and we can offer that to the promoter as a second choice?

Meanwhile, this is good to go with the existing picture, in my opinion.. Storye book (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review. I think any of these crops might work (1, 2, 3) -- the last one would probably work best as a thumbnail, as it only has 3 figures. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for considering a crop version. I have put your examples below, with some more zoomed-in close-ups with simpler pictures of the suffering women. See what you think. Storye book (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon go with one of the close-ups (options D though I), as they display more clearly as thumbnails. I've added them to the article. But I'd be fine with the full picture too. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I

I had some difficulty understanding the hook "painted twice" since the same image pictured in the nomination was owned by the two named in the hook. It may be my own issue. I also prefer to promote the entire image, but someone is welcome to overrule me. The Earwig score is at 40% but it does not appear to be a clop issue, it is titles. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first version (pictured) was painted for the prince. The second version (not pictured) was painted for the cardinal. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]