Talk:Portrait of Cornelis van der Geest

Belgium Low‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

A fact from Portrait of Cornelis van der Geest appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 June 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a portrait was attributed to the wrong painter for many years, and the sitter was also misidentified?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Portrait of Cornelis van der Geest.

Wikipedia

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 Sohom Datta talk 12:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Portrait

... that for many years a painting (pictured) was attributed to a different painter and the person in the portrait was also misidentified?

Source: page 71

ALT1: ... that experts at the National Gallery in London believe that Anthony van Dyck executed a painting (pictured) of the subject's head and collar but over the years other artists expanded it? Source: page 72
ALT2: ... that a portrait (pictured) at the National Gallery in London is considered a "problem painting" because it was skinned and the early provenance is not known? Source: page 71
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/To Catch a Copper

Created by Bruxton (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 150 past nominations.

Bruxton (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I like the first hook best. Article is in good shape, great job on it. Seems fully sourced to reliable sources, and there's no evidence of copyvio. QPQ checks out. Hook checks out from the Google Books link. Good to go. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability?

One of the sources used to support this article, the one by Holmes, is in substantial disagreement with other parts of the article; Holmes doubts the authenticity of a great deal of what is presented in the article as the history of the work, including whether it is even by Vandyke, whether it is the original, whether there was more than one of these made by the original artist, and so on. It is not fun to say "We don't know who painted this, it could come from anywhere and it might be a fake, but it's famous so take a look"; that would also make a rather long-winded article title on Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]