Talk:Ruth Doggett

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Women artists

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists 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.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles

Visual arts

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 articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Miss Ruth Doggett by Harold Gilman

~~... that Ruth Doggett was painted by Harold Gilman (portrait pictured)?~~
Source: Helena Bonett, Charles Ginner, La Vieille Balayeuse, Dieppe 1913 dated August 2011 at Tate.org.uk

Reviewed: Hubert William Lewis

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Moonraker, Sure, no problem. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Full review needed of article and ALT hooks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A fact from Ruth Doggett appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 October 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a review of the London Group's 1936 exhibition noted that many works seemed "perverse and downright silly", but those by Ruth Doggett (portrait shown) formed "welcome oases of sense and sensibility"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Doggett.

Wikipedia

Picture / photo

How about either a better painting of her (which there are online) or an actual photo (also which there are online)?

The current painting of her in the Infobox, in my opinion, is too impressionistic. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, but there is plenty of room below for others. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]