Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Antoine Pinchon

The following discussion 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 Miyagawa (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Robert Antoine Pinchon

(

)

... that Robert Antoine Pinchon was referred to by Claude Monet as a "surprising touch in the service of a surprising eye"?

Created/expanded by Coldcreation (talk). Nominated by Hallows AG (talk) at 08:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Amply long, and new enough. Good coverage of the topic. However, I have some referencing/stylistic concerns. There are several unreferenced paragraphs and one that has a reference only for something not about Pinchon (I have added citation needed templates, and I was able to reference one of the paragraphs using a source cited for other points), plus the section on streets named after him. I found copyvio in the paragraph about Julia Pillore, and I also found some discrepancies and misplaced citations. Since a lot of the article is in a rather flowery style, some of it suggesting translation, and I cannot see the primary source, the Lespinasse book, I am concerned that there may be overly close translation from that. In any case some paragraphs could usefully be shortened or cut altogether (particularly the generalizations about the wars); I've done a little of this where I saw unnecessary duplication, and left a couple of hidden comments. The hook fact is referenced; I have moved "by Claude Monet" earlier in the sentence. But this needs additional references and pruning of peacockery, wordiness, and any over-close translation/paraphrasing before it's ready. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

At this point both Coldcreation and I have been over the article several times, adding references and trimming peacock language and unnecessary generalisations. At this point I am going to assume good faith on all the references to the book by François Lespinasse, although I was unable to check them for either accuracy or avoidance of close paraphrasing. I would still much prefer at least to have page numbers for all those references in case some reader does have access to the book, but I see no point in insisting those be added, and I believe that between us we have shortened the creative prose enough that it is unlikely any inadvertent overly close translation remains. As I said before, the hook fact is referenced (from sources I can see). So, good to go! Yngvadottir (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)