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 Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Damage to the painting in 1913

• ... that the painting Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan has been attacked and damaged twice? (damage pictured) Source: "Friday was not the first time the canvas had been attacked" NYT

• Reviewed: Bob Nicholson (ice hockey)

Created by Violetriga (talk). Self-nominated at 20:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC).

• The article was nominated the day it was created. It is long enough and well-sourced. It does not seem to be biased. The hook is concise, precise and interesting. QPQ done. It seems ready to go! I would appreciate if the article could be further expanded, however, as the topic is very interesting. Surtsicna (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

And there is plenty of source materiel in the very good articles on the painting in (inter alia) the Russian and French Wikipedias. Including, as an alternative image, this photo of the 2018 damage. 31.74.113.2 (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have pulled this from prep per the discussion at WT:DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• • @Gatoclass: - I have been away for a while and this nom appears to have become orphaned? violet/riga _^[talk] 19:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it's right there on the nominations page violetriga. It's just that nobody has responded to the issues raised yet. Gatoclass (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Ahh yes it appears that I'm going blind, sorry about that. There has been significant expansion done on the article (not by me) so it needs a new review somebody please. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• The main issue seemed to be a lack of sourcing for the expanded material; I've done what I can to find and add sources, and it should be possible for someone to do a review now. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think this is okay now. The content is well balanced, which was a major concern last time. The sources look decent: AGF on russian sources and on the reliability of museum websites, etc. Earwig's tool only flags common phrases, and spotchecks didn't find any issues. Article age etc per previous review. QPQ is complete, image licensing seems okay, hook formatting is okay, and I find it quite interesting. GTG. Vanamonde (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)