A fact from William Sharpington appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 November 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nick Garrett shows this image as Sharpington's work but doesn't give details on attribution. Might have to contact him... Blythwood ( talk) 01:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
22:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Created by Blythwood ( talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/William Sharpington; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Only real issue I have with the article is the clutter of images. Too many, and squeezing the text. Just a few images in a gallery as a sampling of his work would suffice. As per
WP:IG: Wikipedia is not an image repository. ... A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.
And one suggestion regarding the hook: it is acceptable as is, but you could make it more interesting by using the phrase "most distinguished" in the hook - after all, it is already in the article and the sources back this up. Otherwise, good article! Thanks.
P 1 9 9
✉
14:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi theleekycauldron, thanks for the ping. I've added a new source citing Glenn Adamson, although I'd definitely argue the sources are accceptable (I'd regard Mark Simonson as a subject-matter expert, the New York Times has referred to him several times now about the difficulties of getting period lettering detail right. The Astbury source is as I understand it her university thesis.) But I've added a new source now, let me know if you want to add others. With the quote...I think it's a good summary to have in the intro, it's nice to have a quick summary of his historical position and how people view his place in his field, but I've rephrased it to make it feel more like a subjective opinion. But anyway, thanks for promoting it! Blythwood ( talk) 22:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
A fact from William Sharpington appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 November 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nick Garrett shows this image as Sharpington's work but doesn't give details on attribution. Might have to contact him... Blythwood ( talk) 01:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
22:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Created by Blythwood ( talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/William Sharpington; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Only real issue I have with the article is the clutter of images. Too many, and squeezing the text. Just a few images in a gallery as a sampling of his work would suffice. As per
WP:IG: Wikipedia is not an image repository. ... A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images.
And one suggestion regarding the hook: it is acceptable as is, but you could make it more interesting by using the phrase "most distinguished" in the hook - after all, it is already in the article and the sources back this up. Otherwise, good article! Thanks.
P 1 9 9
✉
14:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi theleekycauldron, thanks for the ping. I've added a new source citing Glenn Adamson, although I'd definitely argue the sources are accceptable (I'd regard Mark Simonson as a subject-matter expert, the New York Times has referred to him several times now about the difficulties of getting period lettering detail right. The Astbury source is as I understand it her university thesis.) But I've added a new source now, let me know if you want to add others. With the quote...I think it's a good summary to have in the intro, it's nice to have a quick summary of his historical position and how people view his place in his field, but I've rephrased it to make it feel more like a subjective opinion. But anyway, thanks for promoting it! Blythwood ( talk) 22:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)