Talk:Coconut cup (Hans van Amsterdam, Metropolitan Museum)

horribly written

the grammar of this page is terrible and lacks a lot of info PyraticalPunk (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

All changed now! Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Notability

• Copied from RK's talk page:

The prolbme is not the tone, the problem is that the subject is not notable or encyclopedic. Even with your thoughtful edits, the entire page is based on one museum website. I don't find this to be notable, and the museum is not an academic source. There are no sources about this anywhere else online. The van Amsterdam cup can be one (cited) sentence in the Coconut cup article.

The second section onthe page (the other cup) has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Take another look at the article when you can and let me know your thoughts. I plan to nominate it to be deleted. thanksDrew Stanley (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Museum pages (of the great museums anyway) are rightly treated as of equal status to "academic sources". I think you are new to this area. Even if "There are no sources about this anywhere else online" was true, which I very much doubt, there is NO requirement for WP:RS to be available online, and usually the best aren't. In a case like this, most won't be in English. The MET lists the cup as being in the following exhibitions:

• Düsseldorf. Museum Kunstpalast. "Kunsthistorische Ausstellung, Düsseldorf," May 1, 1902–October 20, 1902.
• 's-Hertogenbosch. Noordbrabants Museum. "Zilver uit 's-Hertogenbosch: van Bourgondisch tot Biedermeier," March 9, 1985–June 2, 1985.
• New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Bartholomeus Spranger: Splendor and Eroticism in Imperial Prague," November 4, 2014–February 1, 2015.
• New Haven. Yale Center for British Art, Yale University. "The Paston Treasure," February 15 - May 27, 2018.
• New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Relative Values: The Cost of Art in the Northern Renaissance," October 7, 2019–February 24, 2021.

At least some of these will have had RS catalogues. The MET 2015 one is probably online. The article, as I found it, was a hopelessly confused mess by a MET volunteer, but as it is now I think fine for notability. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Drew Stanley, what this guy said (he knows his stuff). My understanding and experience is that artworks gain notability if a museum source is present. If he had his act together maybe Rodin would have made a coconut cup, but, then again, he'd probably had Claudel sculpt it just for the experience. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• I see both cups are mentioned together here, which shows how they are relevant to each other.
• Footnote 29 here also links the two cups
• The MET one is even taken as the type example by Grove, with a citation to a German monograph.
• It seems to be mentioned in this paper

Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Drew Stanley, the sources found here by Johnbod hopefully changed your mind about a deletion attempt (and maybe inspired giving pause on your prods to check 'before' to such an extent as Johnbod has done here). These sources and analysis should be transferred to the page itself, or at least its talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'll copy the whole section there - let's continue it there, if we need to, cheers Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)