A fact from The Duchess of Montesquiou-Fezensac appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 August 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria
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.
... that Oskar Kokoschka's painting The Duchess of Montesquiou-Fezensac was confiscated by the Nazis after his work was labelled "degenerate"? Source: "In April 1937, a Nazi commission was ordered by Joseph Goebbels, Reichminister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, to remove all "degenerate" art from German public museums. "Degenerate" artworks were generally modern works that diverted from traditional means of representation through abstraction and distortion. Six months of purging resulted in the removal of approximately 17,000 artworks from German museums. Duchess of Montesquiou-Fezensac was taken by the Nazi commission from the Museum Folkwang Essen and given the inventory number 16033. It was included in the famous Nazi organized exhibition in Munich, Entartete Kunst, or the Degenerate Art Show, which exhibited over 650 of the purged artworks." - The Duchess of Montesquiou-Fezensac in the online catalog of the Cincinnati Art Museum. Retrieved 18 August 2022
Overall: reasonable hook and fairly sourced article. New and long enough. My comments are just for formality. For the last phrase of the background section a source would be good. Does source 3 also account for the preceding phrase? In the section subject I'd be glad to know if the source number 8 also goes for the phrase on the scandal in the viennese society also goes for the phrases preceding the sourced phrase? In the Analysis section the last snippet is not sourced and does source No. 1 of Natter 128, also account for the phrases preceding the sourced phrases? Else, thank you for the article.@Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy):Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paradise Chronicle, thanks for the review. I'll try to address your concerns point by point -
1. This is a reasonable request. Kokoschka painted at least six portraits in Switzerland during the winter of 1909-10: Bessie Bruce, the Duchess, her husband, Conte Verona, Bertha Eckstein Diener, and Auguste Forel. These are all recounted in his autobiography, Stories from my Life pp. 54-58. Natter 124 remarks that this winter "was a particularly fruitful time for Kokoschka," and Natter 126 establishes that these portraits came about by Loos's arrangement. I have updated the article with a more precise number and some citations. Unfortunately this has thrown off some of the reference numbers you refer to.
2. Which use of ref 3 (Schorske 338) are you referring to? It is used four times in the background section, and three of those sentences have multiple phrases.
3. I'm confused again, there's no mention of scandal in the subject section, and if you're referring to the background section ref 11 (Natter 129, previously ref 8) isn't used there.
4. This is a sentence fragment, is there supposed to be more here?
5. Re. analysis, I have moved ref 17 (Schorske 340) to the end of that sentence as the last bit of that sentence is a summary of what is said in that same source to avoid quoting a larger chunk.
6. Yes, ref 1 (Natter 128) refers to both of those. The preceding phrase is simply a description of the placement of her hands, which is in the source.
Sorry for confusing you, my fault:) I mixed up the section background with subject in the comment, else you've addressed most concerns.
I was referring to the phrase of "Kokoschka further scandalized the viennese polite society..." in the Background section which only has a source for the following phrase, so I'd be glad to know if this source (Schorske 338) also goes for the preceding one.
In the Subject section I'd be interested if (Natter 129) also accounts for the preceding phrases before their the one on their marriage.
In the section provenance I found something new: Kokoschkas first sell to a Museum, which I couldn't confirm in the source of the Cincinnati museum. Maybe you could help me with this. Again, thank you for the really interesting article and sorry for the confusion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, Schorske 338 describes the entire incident. I've added another instance of the ref to clarify that.
2. I'm actually really glad you brought this up as it turns out Natter 129 is a full page illustration, whoops. Natter 128 has their marriage date and Natter 130 has the date he became a duke. I've added those cites to their respective phrases.
3. This was cited to Natter 128 in the lead; I've moved the cite down to the provenance section to comply with MOS. I also went ahead and moved the other ref that was in the lead.
reasonable hook and fairly sourced article. New and long enough. My comments are just for formality. For the last phrase of the background section a source would be good. Does source 3 also account for the preceding phrase? In the section subject I'd be glad to know if the source number 8 also goes for the phrase on the scandal in the viennese society also goes for the phrases preceding the sourced phrase? In the Analysis section the last snippet is not sourced and does source No. 1 of Natter 128, also account for the phrases preceding the sourced phrases? Else, thank you for the article.@Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy): Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)