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.
... that Edvard Munch'sInheritance(pictured) is an inverted Madonna with child? Source: "...depicted a grotesque inversion of the classic theme “Madonna with child.” [1]
I'm not sure that the phrase inverted Madonna with child is immediately understandable to everyone. Maybe it could be changed to ... that Edvard Munch'sInheritance(pictured) is an inversion of the traditional "Madonna with child" theme? to give a little more context. The text in the source also takes this approach. It may also be a good idea to wikilink Madonna (art). What do you think? Phlsph7 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we need theme. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
ALT1 looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The phrase "with child" should be avoided, because the English idiom refers to pregnancy, and the pregnant Madonna is its own separate artistic subject. The source, which is a journal of dermatology rather than of art history, doesn't appear to know this. I've moved the article to Inheritance (Munch) in order to comply with MOS:ART/TITLE. I would suggest the following:
That's a good point about how the phrase "with child" could easily be misunderstood. ALT2 avoids this problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)