Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Doggett

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 23:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Ruth Doggett

(
)
Miss Ruth Doggett by Harold Gilman
Miss Ruth Doggett by Harold Gilman

Created by Moonraker (talk) and RebeccaGreen (talk). Self-nominated at 09:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC).

  • Comment I note that the article Ruth Doggett is primarily referenced to primary sources, and does not make a clear claim, nor provide evidence, of notability. I am searching for more sources to improve the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, RebeccaGreen. I would not have said *primarily*, and there is no other substantial biography of Ruth Doggett, so some reliance on primary sources can't be avoided, but you have made big improvements and I am adding you above as a co-creator. Moonraker (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A new hook is probably needed as the current one is really bland. It does not make sense to people who don't know who Gilman is. Looking at Doggett's article, there are many other possible hook facts that may work better, such as perhaps something related to critics' reviews of her work, or perhaps about the time she won a prize that was worth £5. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That is a subjective opinion, if not a deliberately wrecking one, Narutolovehinata5. I do not agree that it is “bland”, it is interesting from an artistic point of view, and it is even better with the picture. Please feel free to suggest a more interesting way to introduce the picture. Moonraker (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, it isn't interesting to anyone who doesn't know who Gilman is. What makes the fact that Doggett was painted by Gilman interesting compared to any other portrait? And in fact, it could even be argued that the hook focuses much more on Gilman than it does on Doggett, considering the placement of "portrait pictured" and the wording itself. And it's not like the picture can't work in the hook with any other hook, as other options could always go "... that Ruth Dogget (portrait pictured)" or something to that effect. Anyway, looking at the article again, here are some possible options:
  • ALT1 ... that when Ruth Doggett (portrait pictured) submitted a poster design to the Cambridge Arts and Crafts Society, her prize money was £5?
  • ALT2 ... that a review of the London Group's exhibition in 1936 noted that, while much of the event seemed "perverse and downright silly", Ruth Doggett's (portrait pictured) featured work formed "welcome oases of sense and sensibility"? (this hook is over 200 characters so it could be shortened)
  • ALT3 ... that the work of Ruth Doggett (portrait pictured) has been described as "welcome oases of sense and sensibility" and "perfect control of what may be termed 'colour-tone'"?
I understand that these hooks no longer focus on the Gilman portrait, but at least these focus on Doggett herself, who is the hook subject after all. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Some possible alternative hooks - I also thought the first hook suggested needed more interest. Painters often paint portraits of other painters ....
  • ALT2b ... that a review of the London Group's 1936 exhibition noted that many works seemed "perverse and downright silly", but Ruth Doggett's (portrait pictured) formed "welcome oases of sense and sensibility"?
  • ALT4 ... that the works of Ruth Doggett (portrait pictured) stood out to exhibition reviewers as exceptions from the general "appalling dullness" and "perverse and downright silly" work of others? RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • RebeccaGreen, could I please leave it to you to deal with this page from now on? I do not have hours and days and weeks for fending off the efforts of Narutolovehinata5 to reinvent the DYK rules for his own purposes. I guess he has nothing better to do. Moonraker (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Moonraker, Sure, no problem. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how my earlier comments are "reinventing the DYK rules for my own purposes" when all I said was that the original hook failed to appeal to a broad audience (which is an actual DYK rule, albeit admittedly a contentious one) and even Rebecca agreed that a better hook was needed. In any case, since I helped propose new hooks, a new reviewer would be needed anyway. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with DYK rules but I think what NLH5 is trying to say is this: Most people don't know who Doggett or Gilman are, and because of that, the hook is not interesting. People have painted other people for thousands of years, probably hundreds of thousands of times. Why is it interesting that THIS person painted THAT person? I briefly read the article and learned that she was an art student and he was his master. That's cool. How about something like: DYK ALT5: ... that when studying art, student Ruth Doggett was painted (portrait pictured) by her teacher Harold Gilman? That's much more interesting. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • We're gonna need a new reviewer here to check all the hook options so far. Per Rebecca's agreement that a new hook was needed, ALT0 has been struck. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it's going to need a full review, as it doesn't seem that one has been done. Re QPQ: I did a review of Template:Did you know nominations/Brigitte Kronauer for my 6th DYK, which has been promoted ahead of this one and is now my 5th DYK credit, so that QPQ can be applied here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think a new QPQ is necessary since Moonraker was the original nominator and he already provided a QPQ. You are still free to use the QPQ for Kronauer in a subsequent nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Full review needed of article and ALT hooks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This article is new enough and long enough. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline and I am approving ALT2b. I like ALT4, but it is not quite right because both quotes come from the same reviewer. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright or plagiarism issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ruth_Doggett&oldid=1019520788"