Template:Did you know nominations/Cady Noland
- 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 SonOfYoutubers talk 07:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cady Noland
... that the artist Cady Noland was sued by two different collectors of her work after she "disavowed" artworks that she no longer considered genuine because they were damaged or altered?
- Source: Julia Halperin (Oct 4, 2024), “Just How Much Control Can an Artist Have Over Their Work?”, T Mag (New York Times Style Magazine): “The Swiss art dealer Marc Jancou sued Noland and Sotheby’s after the artist disavowed a work that he wanted to sell at auction. […] Noland visited Sotheby’s to view it, along with two other works destined for the block that season, and found its corners so damaged that she considered the work totaled. Sotheby’s called off the sale. [...] But it was hardly the last time that Noland would defend her art’s honor. There was a series of lawsuits over ‘Log Cabin Facade’ (1990), a life-size wooden sculpture that the artist disavowed after its previous owner allowed it to be installed outdoors for over 10 years and then replaced the rotted wood with new logs. ‘This is not an artwork,’ she said in a handwritten fax addressed to its new owner, the Ohio-based collector Scott Mueller”
- ALT 1 (added after discussion below): ... that the artist Cady Noland has "disavowed" several artworks that she no longer considered genuine because they were damaged or altered?
- Reviewed:
- Comment: First ever DYK nom, please advise if I mis-formatted anything. Thanks!
Improved to Good Article status by 19h00s (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
19h00s (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC).
- @19h00s: Hello and welcome to DYK. I don't plan on reviewing this any time soon as I have a policy of reviewing oldest first, but I can tell you the hook won't fly as it is unduly negative. Also, and these are not DYK issues, the image fails WP:IMAGERELEVANCE as you can't see her properly and the sections badly want breaking up.--Launchballer 20:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, makes sense on the negativity front. I'd disagree on the image front, as detailed in the article and discussions on the talk page (long story short: she doesn't allow images of herself to be created or circulate, this image where she hides her identity has been widely discussed and is discussed in the article). Don't necessarily disagree on the breaking up of the sections, but a biography article necessarily requires a more cogent narrative structure that is extremely difficult to achieve when you spread everything out into sections that break up the chronological flow. Happy to retract this nomination or you can just fail it. 19h00s (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- A nomination doesn't fail just because one hook doesn't work. You could probably get away with ALT0a: ... that Cady Noland "disavowed" some of her artworks?, though I'll let a reviewer adjudicate on that.--Launchballer 20:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, makes sense on the negativity front. I'd disagree on the image front, as detailed in the article and discussions on the talk page (long story short: she doesn't allow images of herself to be created or circulate, this image where she hides her identity has been widely discussed and is discussed in the article). Don't necessarily disagree on the breaking up of the sections, but a biography article necessarily requires a more cogent narrative structure that is extremely difficult to achieve when you spread everything out into sections that break up the chronological flow. Happy to retract this nomination or you can just fail it. 19h00s (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Full review needed now that ALT hook has been provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your extensive work on this article, 19h00s. You nominated the day it passed its GA review, so it counts as a new GA. Brevity is certainly not an issue. The sourcing seems impeccable and I see no obvious neutrality issues. I do agree with Launchballer that the sections desperately need subsections; section with up to 16 paragraphs, some of them very long, are difficult to navigate. This is not a DYK requirement by any means. I am not convinced that the non-free infobox photo is fair use because the subject is a living person. There are five more non-free images in the article. I am not sure whether this is a DYK concern, but it might be a GAN concern, on the basis of which this hook is nominated. I hope I can get some input from @DYK admins: . Surtsicna (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Since there's questions about the GA review, pinging Floating Orb who conducted the GA review. RoySmith (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks y'all for taking a look at this nom. First, on the image front - I welcome more thoughts on this picture, but I've been through several rounds of discussion on this and multiple admins have concluded the image is OK as used given the circumstances (she doesn't allow pictures, this image is widely discussed as an example of that, it's discussed in the article). But obviously defer to community consensus. On the GA process, I would love for a new, full GA review. I asked several times during the process for others to step in and take over from Floating Orb, but other editors were really intent on letting FO learn the GA process (at the expense of this review). If you look at the full edit history on the review it's really hard to follow. But experienced GAR editors seemed to think it was fine by the end.19h00s (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Given that this is about a GA, pinging Epicgenius or Gerda Arendt for input here given that they are experienced with the process. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- There can't be a new GA review until a formal overturn of the one we have. How about accepting it and just improve the article further. Formality things like subheaders are no reason to question a review, - it's not even among the criteria. I'll keep this watched, and will look, but not right now, going to be out all day soon, and there are commitments before getting back here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I just looked at the lead image and would not use it, not in the article nor in a DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the ping. My understanding of WP:NFCC (based on #1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.") is that non-free images of living persons are not allowed on Wikipedia at all. Therefore, the lead image of the article should be deleted. I haven't looked at the other non-free images though. Epicgenius (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Removed the lead image per this discussion. I don't necessarily agree but I respect the consensus. --19h00s (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Surtsicna: Are there still issues with the article, or were the images the only problem? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Given that this is about a GA, pinging Epicgenius or Gerda Arendt for input here given that they are experienced with the process. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
