Talk:A Blonde Woman

Did you know nomination

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 Cielquiparle (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

A Blonde Woman

• ... that Palma Vecchio's A Blonde Woman (pictured) may be a goddess, a lady, or a courtesan? Source: (1) https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/palma-vecchio-a-blonde-woman (2) https://archive.org/details/sixteenthcentury0000nati/page/184/mode/2up?view=theater (3) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.100634/page/n167/mode/2up?view=theater
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kenneth Willoughby Heaton

Created by Ficaia (talk). Self-nominated at 14:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/A Blonde Woman, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Long article moved to article space the same day as the nomination. Sources look good and no copyvio detected by the copyvio detector. Short and intriguing hook, although the parts about lady and courtesan are only explicitly mentioned in the article's lead section. The article body implies them by discussing courtesans and young brides as painting subjects in general, but could be more explicit about this painting in particular. QPQ done. Free, beautiful image that works well in small size; the Commons page says it has been superseded by another version, so consider switching to that one, although it's not necessary for a DYK pass. Ffranc (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ffranc: I've added a sentence to the last paragraph of the "Analysis" section which hopefully backs up the hook better. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Good work. There is room for improvement related to the hook, but it should be good enough for DYK. The courtesan quotation could be improved by in-line attribution or be rewritten as paraphrase. The lady theory is still only supported by a source about the general motif, but it's established earlier in the article that the painting belongs to this type. The gallery at the bottom is largely unsupported - the article only refers to a few of these as related, and only directly to Titian's Flora (which I moved to a more prominent position) - but it might not be a problem; if someone thinks it is a problem, just get rid of it. Ffranc (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Occupation

I'm sure "Palma's pictures of women may sometimes depict courtesans, they may equally often be portraits of great ladies, gentlewomen, and brides," is true, but the latter groups were surely never painted half-undressed like this? Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this source agrees with you (pp. 40-41). It's listed in the further reading section. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)