Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Benwell Clark

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 SL93 (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Benwell Clark

Joseph Benwell Clark, self-portrait
Joseph Benwell Clark, self-portrait

Source: “Beardsley (Aubrey Vincent)” in T. Bose, Paul Tiessen, eds., Bookman's Catalogue Vol. 1 A-L: The Norman Colbeck Collection (UBC Press, 1987), p. 41

Created by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 05:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Lua error: expandTemplate: template "y" does not exist.
* I am very surprised that I can find nothing in the British Newspaper Archive about this artist, although it is true that very few newspapers of 1938 have been digitised or microfilmed. All I could find was a basic death notice in The Times. You are welcome to use this as a backup to the Ancestry citation for his death: "Deaths". The Times (47919). Gale: Times Digital Archive. 15 February 1938. Retrieved 11 October 2020. Clark. On Feb. 13, 1938 at Cerne Abbas, Dorset, Joseph Benwell Clark passed peacefully away, aged 80. This link is available for free to anyone with a UK city library card. I shall let you know if I find anything else. Storye book (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • In passing, there is an extra reference for the Munchausen book here.Storye book (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Cerne Historical Society reported in 2016 that a new biog of Clark was to be published that year. (Link). If it exists, it may have the citations that you need for the family section. Storye book (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Updated review. Following more edits by the creator I believe that the improvement of the article, and the increased proportion of secondary sources, overrides my previous worry about primary source content. I still think the article may still be liable to tagging in respect of some primary sources (although I don't personally agree with WP policy on this matter). To state my position clearly, I believe that all histories have to be a work in process, and that there can be no such thing as a completed and perfect history. Therefore histories with a proportion of primary sources (where other WP criteria are met and no other sources are yet available) should not be cut or diminished on that account. So I am giving this the green tick in the hope that this interesting article based on valuable research can get through DYK safely. Note: as I write this, my contributions of potential citations (above) have not been copied by the creator into the article, so my review is not compromised. Storye book (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Template:Ping Thank you for your improvement of the article. Please see the above review update. Storye book (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)