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 Launchballertalk 00:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Article needs a little work, plus the hook is poorly written. As per WP:DYKTAG, the "Legacy" section of the articleis too short and should be expanded or merged into another section. Also, the article needs to be checked for grammar. I did a quick readthrough of the article and noticed a lot of missing commas. Speaking of commas, in the hook itself, a comma is needed after "1933" and not needed after "two young girls". The second half of the hook is also missing "the". The article mentions the subject was the "picture of the year", not "image of the year" (which should be in quotes inside the hook). It should also be noted who recognized it as the "picture of the year". My suggestion: " ... that in 1933, two young girls(pictured) were the "picture of the year" at the Paris Salon?" –Dream out loud (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you... maybe I am not the right person to create Sher-Gil paintings. I will re-look. The hook is is not right. Newspapers of 1933 do not mention it. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Who will if you don't? Just learn from the feedback, gradually improve your technique, and keep at it. (I will try to have a look later) Philafrenzy (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Great work, exactly what was required. The facts, biographical and otherwise, are essential, but it is the critical commentary that lifts an article about a creative work above a banal recitation of those facts. Indeed, where notability is in doubt (it wasn't here) it is that critical commentary that proves notability. I should know, but I am not certain of the status of the announcement of the picture or pictures of the year at the salon. Our article on it and its derivatives is surprisingly short. In any case it seems to be an award of the jury and here is a link to a 1941 report that states explicitly that the painting received that honour. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
@Dream out loud: Does the above satisfy your concerns? Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
It's not very clear what "split identity" means. It sounds like it's referring to her dissociative identity disorder or something else related to her mental health, but I see from reading the article that it has to do with Sher-Gil's ethnic and gender identity. I'm not sure "split identity" is the correct phrase and it's not used in the article. The article uses the phrase "divided identity", but I'm not sure that's appropriate either. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Have added alt2. The "split" appears common to many of her portraits. Whispyhistory (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Dream out loud:: It has been nearly a month since @Whispyhistory: suggested this second ALT. Are you able to finish this DYK review, or do you require someone else to review the nomination? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is getting stale and the reviewer hasn’t been on WP in a week. It’s time to close this. Schwede66 19:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Reopened as per request by P-Makoto. Schwede66 20:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Overall: Earwig indicates that copyright violation is unlikely; the image is sufficiently clear even at a smaller size and was added to Wikimedia Commons as public domain, as Indian law has copyright expire 70 years p. m. a. (thus it entered the public domain in 2011; of course, if any image issues crop up, the hook can still work without the picture, though it definitely looks better with it); ALT2 is sufficiently interesting (a reasonably curious person could be interested by Sher-Gil being the first woman from Asia to receive the Paris Salon's gold medal, which the India International Centre Quarterly article does verify); the article was new enough at nomination; the nominator has fulfilled QPQ; and while it needs some work (which I will suggest the nominator attend to), its quality is sufficient for DYK (which requires articles be presentable, though not something like A class or GA quality). Assuming good faith on offline sources I don't have access to, I approve the nomination, with some suggestions for @Whispyhistory: DYK articles don't need to be perfect, so the article is ready for DYK, but I'd still encourage you to review the article and very carefully attend to copyeditng. Some sentences could be clearer. For example, Sher-Gil was typically one of her own critics seems like it's trying to say (based on the source) something more like "Sher-Gil was typically one of her own worst critics" (dropping the word "worst" changes the sentence from fitting a classic and recognizable aphorism to being an oxymormon). The clause Sher-Gil's friend, Esmet Rahim, described in Usha (1942) is similarly confusing; readers may not know that Usha was a Lahore periodical is or why the statement appearing in Usha matters. This could be simplified to "In 1942, Esmet Rahim (a painter and friend of Sher-Gil) described the painting as"... etc. These suggestions aren't exhaustive, and are meant to improve the quality of the article just a bit more. In any case, thank you for creating it and spreading information about some interesting art history. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @P-Makoto: for the thorough review. I will re-read through with your suggestions. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Article needs a little work, plus the hook is poorly written. As per WP:DYKTAG, the "Legacy" section of the articleis too short and should be expanded or merged into another section. Also, the article needs to be checked for grammar. I did a quick readthrough of the article and noticed a lot of missing commas. Speaking of commas, in the hook itself, a comma is needed after "1933" and not needed after "two young girls". The second half of the hook is also missing "the". The article mentions the subject was the "picture of the year", not "image of the year" (which should be in quotes inside the hook). It should also be noted who recognized it as the "picture of the year". My suggestion: " ... that in 1933, two young girls (pictured) were the "picture of the year" at the Paris Salon?" –Dream out loud (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is getting stale and the reviewer hasn’t been on WP in a week. It’s time to close this. Schwede66 19:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Reopened as per request by P-Makoto. Schwede66 20:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Earwig indicates that copyright violation is unlikely; the image is sufficiently clear even at a smaller size and was added to Wikimedia Commons as public domain, as Indian law has copyright expire 70 years p. m. a. (thus it entered the public domain in 2011; of course, if any image issues crop up, the hook can still work without the picture, though it definitely looks better with it); ALT2 is sufficiently interesting (a reasonably curious person could be interested by Sher-Gil being the first woman from Asia to receive the Paris Salon's gold medal, which the India International Centre Quarterly article does verify); the article was new enough at nomination; the nominator has fulfilled QPQ; and while it needs some work (which I will suggest the nominator attend to), its quality is sufficient for DYK (which requires articles be presentable, though not something like A class or GA quality). Assuming good faith on offline sources I don't have access to, I approve the nomination, with some suggestions for @Whispyhistory: DYK articles don't need to be perfect, so the article is ready for DYK, but I'd still encourage you to review the article and very carefully attend to copyeditng. Some sentences could be clearer. For example,