Template:Did you know nominations/Hill & Adamson

The following discussion 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Not enough original content

Hill & Adamson

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

...back in the 1840s, Hill & Adamson of Edinburgh produced the first substantial body of self-consciously artistic work using the newly invented medium of photography?

Created/expanded by Scewing (talk). Self nom at 04:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems interesting. The article might need a bit more meat if you want to take it further but for all its size it seems to referenced suitably. I'm seeing about 500k hits in a Google Books search for "Hill and Adamson", so it should be pretty doable. I'd be okay signing off on this one as is provided the hook is fixed to remove the erroneous apostrophe from "1840's"—there's never an apostrophe in a plural, it should just be 1840s. GRAPPLE X 02:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Image also checks out fine, it's public domain (figured as much given the age). GRAPPLE X 02:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
An interesting topic for an article, and a good start on it. Length is fine; 3535 prose characters w. DYKcheck. Images fine; use for DYK is incidental. One earlier DYK listed on the nominator's talk page, so quid pro quo DYK review not required. There are some issues. Referencing is adequate, but hardly thorough. The reference to the exhibition catalog by Michaelson is not available online. The phrase "first substantial body of self consciously artistic work" needs to be in quotations in the lead, and its author explicitly identified there. The writer is the photography curator at the Metropolitan Museum; this could be noted as part of the reference. I think this reference is acceptable given the distinction of its author. The hook itself seems rather academic, and would need the same quotation marks. How about something a little looser?
ALT1 ...the first substantial series of photographs intended as art is likely the 1843 work of Hill & Adamson in Scotland? Easchiff (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
There are additional direct quotations from the sources that are not explicitly indicated. Direct quotation must be indicated by quotation marks and citations. Adding a reference at the end of a paragraph is not sufficient when phrases and sentences are copied from sources. This needs to be fixed before I'd endorse DYK. Easchiff (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of this article's prose has been copied from David Octavius Hill or is quoted from its sources. The original prose is less than 1500 characters, and is thus ineligible for DYK. Otherwise I think this article is fine; the issues with attribution are fixed. Easchiff (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

How much original text is there? Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is original, with about 615 characters (with spaces and reference numbers, using Word). The sections below that don't have original content at present. Easchiff (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, then I don't mind that symbol. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)