Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Sunita Devi

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sunita Devi

[edit]

Sunita Devi and Jacob Epstein

  • Reviewed: Not a self-nom

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 00:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

  • - long enough, well referenced, copyvio free - please go with ALT0. It's snappier and until they click on the article not everyone may know who Jacob Epstein is (why would I care if I don't know anything about him?). Having said that, per new rules I believe @Edwardx: needs to slap a QPQ on this before I can give it a tick. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, but Alt2 has human interest with a wife wanting her husband to have an affair with a model. That's clickable I think. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There's also the fact that they are clearly of different races. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Tudat. I'll leave it to the passer to choose if they want that one. I just didn't have a clue who he was, or what the time period was, or if he was a philanderer - but perhaps that's a draw! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well he was an artist, draw your own conclusions! Philafrenzy (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I wish you could 'like' edits. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Panyd: New QPQ rules came into effect on 21st November. Since this was nominated prior to that date, it doesn't require one. Care to finish this review? Fuebaey (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • New review request. Fuebaey (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • To be honest, though the hook certainly has clickability potential, the section of the article containing this information is a bit confusing, and surely the hook could be expanded to make the implied facts clearer? We have to assume good faith that the offline book gives this information, but the suggestion is that Mrs Epstein wasn't fussy about which woman tempted Jacob off the straight and narrow (Anita Devi was also an option)! I'd suggest a more descriptive hook such as:
ALT3: ... that the wife of sculptor Jacob Epstein hoped that he would have an affair with his Kashmiri model Sunita Devi or her sister? Sionk (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's the quote from the Gardiner book: "Mrs Epstein was delighted, naturally: where Dolores had failed, here were two very attractive girls - if not as beautiful as her sister, Anita was certainly pretty - who might so distract her husband that they would sabotage his continuing, passionate love affair with Kathleen, and so put an end to the two or three nights a week he spent at Regent Square. But whatever kind of relationship he had with Sunita, it had no such effect".
I have struck Alt 1 as it was Epstein's idea that they live there, not his wife's. Alt2 is by far the strongest in my opinion but they are all OK. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • :REVIEW COMPLETED - The following has been checked in this review by Esemono
Article created by Philafrenzy on October 25, 2014 and has 2789 characters of readable prose, nominated by Edwardx (talk)
NPOV
Image is copyright free as is was published in 1925
Hook ALT 3 is interesting, short enough and sourced with Refs 1
AGF on offline sourcing with Ref 1 - Epstein: Artist Against the Establishment. London: Flamingo, pp. 261-2. ISBN 000654598X
Every paragraph sourced
Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector results
GTG -- Esemono (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)