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: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 00:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Engagement Ring (Roy Lichtenstein)[edit]

• ... that Roy Lichtenstein's Engagement Ring marks his transition from his prior painterly work to his subsequent more polished mechanical-looking work?

Created/expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nom at 20:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• 1st of 2 QPQs against Template:Did you know nominations/Stafanie Taylor--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Length and newness is fine. It is classed as a stub. I don't think you get 2 self noms for Template:Did you know nominations/Stafanie Taylor unless I'm not understanding the QPQ rule. I can't find the hook in the article! The nearest I can find is: "The general "rawness" of the work links it to Lichtenstein's work from the 1950s, while its "integrated formality" links it to his subsequent works." I accept I'm no art historian however.. Secretlondon (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes the sentence "The general "rawness" of the work links it to Lichtenstein's work from the 1950s, while its "integrated formality" links it to his subsequent works." is what this hook is about. Do I need to change the hook?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Previous reviewer handled QPQ, newness and length. Both images have fair use rationales. Article is completely supported by inline citations.
• Book sources support text and were not plagiarised writing the article.
• I see the previous reviewers comments. I think they are valid to a degree. The text is not directly supporting this in a blinkingly obvious kind of way. "The general "rawness" of the work links it to Lichtenstein's work from the 1950s, while its "integrated formality" links it to his subsequent works." is the sentence but is it requires reader interpretation to get to the fact. I'm inclined to let this slide. --LauraHale (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Good to go if mover is confident in my thinking. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)