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: rejected by reviewer, closed by BorgQueen  talk  16:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• ... that Triple Self-Portrait contains seven self-portraits? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-journal-news-capturing-middle-americ/128341828/
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: will do qpq

Created by Guerillero ( talk). Self-nominated at 19:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Triple Self-Portrait; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. reply

• I will review this. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough: - See below.

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - See below.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

QPQ: - Not done.
Overall: Article moved to mainspace on 18 July. The length is an edge case in absolute terms—it either barely falls short of 1,500 character or barely makes it, depending on exactly how one counts the characters. This seems like a subject that more could be written about, so I'm going to go with "too short" for now. All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for. Earwig reveals no copyvio, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing. There are no obvious neutrality issues. The hook is interesting and properly sourced ( the cited source attributes this to Peter Rockwell, but Halpern similarly states that The catalog title Triple Self-Portrait actually understates the case, if one adds the sheet of multiple rough sketches tacked to the upper left of the canvas and the series of small reproductions of self-portraits by Dürer, Rembrandt, Picasso, and Van Gogh tacked to the upper right., so I don't think WP:INTEXT attribution is necessary). QPQ has not been done. Some comments about the content:

• I would suggest adding {{ Infobox artwork}}. This would, I think, render {{ Italic title}} redundant.
• created for the cover of the February 13, 1960, edition of The Saturday Evening Post. – unsourced in the WP:LEAD and not mentioned in the body at all.
• According to Michele Bogart the painting shows that Rockwell saw himself as split between an artist and an illustrator. – I'm not sure I get this from the source?
• According to Deborah Solomon, by not painting his eyes in the reflection Rockwell shows that he rejects "the popular myth of artists as heroic seers" – well yes, but this misses Solomon's point that if his eyes can't be seen through his spectacles in the mirror reflection, the non-reflected Rockwell should also be unable to see out through the opaque lenses. It's not that the eyes aren't seen in the reflection per se, it's that his eyes are obscured by eyeglasses that obstruct rather than aid vision.
• depicting the way American Realism is divorced from the reality found in a mirror – realism, sure, but American Realism?

Ping Guerillero. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I will try to work on this over the weekend when I have more time -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Just as a comment, the hook is inaccurate: the source saying seven self-portraits does not count the Cubist on of Picasso, although it notes that it is indeed a portrait. The hook should say eight self-portraits if we're counting the Cubist portrait, as our article does. AryKun ( talk) 15:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Well, it's accurate in the same sense that it is accurate to say that all months have 28 days. We could add "at least" to the hook if we want to make it absolutely clear, but we can't really say eight without a sourcing explicitly saying eight. We have a source explicitly saying seven, and it doesn't include the Picasso. One could also include or exclude the sketches (and count them as a single self-portrait or several if one does include them). As noted above, Halpern says The catalog title Triple Self-Portrait actually understates the case, if one adds the sheet of multiple rough sketches tacked to the upper left of the canvas and the series of small reproductions of self-portraits by Dürer, Rembrandt, Picasso, and Van Gogh tacked to the upper right. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• @ Guerillero: It's been over a week since both the nomination and the review and a QPQ has still not been provided. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 03:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  And it still is Sunday and I said I would do some work over the weekend. Back off -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Template:Did you know nominations/Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council Proposal 156 has been reviewed -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ TompaDompa: Since the QPQ has been provided, this is ready for a new look. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 11:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  The content issues brought up above remain unaddressed. TompaDompa ( talk) 11:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• I unfortunately am going to be forced to abandon this DYK. I thought that I was going to be able to do some more content work, but things have spun off in my personal life that I need to handle. I will be back on 14 August if this isn't closed by then. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Reopening this nomination per a request on my talk page by Theleekycauldron, who has offered to adopt the nomination in Guerillero's place. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 03:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I've cited the lead paragraph to Bogart – as for the rest, Guerillero will be able to hash out interpretation when he gets back :) theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• @ Guerillero, Theleekycauldron, and TompaDompa: Status of this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 10:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Unresolved issues remain. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    • @ TompaDompa: Given the circumstances, what should be done with the nomination now? Wait for either Leeky or Guerillero to address the issues or is it time to close this? Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 13:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC) reply
      • It's not like I'm in any hurry, and I think this makes for a good hook, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to close it either. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• @ Guerillero and Theleekycauldron: Pinging to see if this should still push through. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 09:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Given the lack of responses from the nominator and the lack of movement on this it's probably time to close this as stale. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 03:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC) reply