Template:Did you know nominations/Nahem Shoa
- 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 Allen3 talk 16:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nahem Shoa[edit]
Nahem Shoa standing beside Giant Head of Ben
... that the artist Nahem Shoa (pictured) increased the number of portraits of Black and mixed-race British people on display in British art museums?
- ALT1:... that some of the British painter Nahem Shoa's portraits (pictured) were painted at up to 15 times life size?
- Reviewed: Country Joe and the Fish
- Comment: OTRS is
pendingin place for the image.
Created by Arttalk1984 (talk) and GrammarFascist (talk). Nominated by GrammarFascist (talk) at 17:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC).
The image is nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons. It's claimed that the copyright status of the painting is not definite. Mhhossein (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- That phrasing is somewhat disingenuous, Mhhossein. You nominated the file for deletion and you "claimed that the copyright status of the painting is not definite" — even though OTRS received Nahem Shoa's declaration before Arttalk1984's. No one else is denying that the artist has licensed the file in a way compatible with its use on Commons and Wikipedia. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 08:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would not call it "disingenuous" assuming good faith, because there's no contradiction between the nomination and that claim. No one denied the license being granted, rather it was due to an OTRS pending template pasted there. How would you guarantee that both emails are checked? There's only one addressed ticket at the moment. By the way, I withdrew the nomination because an admin said there was no problem as far as he saw. Mhhossein (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- What made it disingenuous was the implication that someone else made the claim and you were just reporting it here. (As for WP:AGF, did you have that in mind when you nominated the file for deletion despite it being tagged with one OTRS ticket pending and another accepted?) But thank you for withdrawing the nomination. Perhaps you will exercise more care with future nominations, and not assume which ticket has been assessed. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 14:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good faith takes a different meaning when it comes to copyright issues. Even now, I think that I did the best thing possible by nominating the file. Unfortunately, the files are suspicious until a volunteer from OTRS team addresses them. I withdrew only due to what the admin said. Please consider that, the nomination was not based on an "assumption" rather a problem existing in the description page of the file. Btw, who made the claim? Mhhossein (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- What made it disingenuous was the implication that someone else made the claim and you were just reporting it here. (As for WP:AGF, did you have that in mind when you nominated the file for deletion despite it being tagged with one OTRS ticket pending and another accepted?) But thank you for withdrawing the nomination. Perhaps you will exercise more care with future nominations, and not assume which ticket has been assessed. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 14:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would not call it "disingenuous" assuming good faith, because there's no contradiction between the nomination and that claim. No one denied the license being granted, rather it was due to an OTRS pending template pasted there. How would you guarantee that both emails are checked? There's only one addressed ticket at the moment. By the way, I withdrew the nomination because an admin said there was no problem as far as he saw. Mhhossein (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Full review needed now that image issues have been settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
ALT-1 passes H, L, N, P - no Q needed. Primary hook doesn't pass H, not interesting (unquantified "increased" is too vague to be of interest). ALT-1 clear for queue. LavaBaron (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Full review written in plain English still needed, and one that meets the standing T:TDYK requirements as well as WP:DYKR ones. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to be late with it (I've only had 3 DYKs I nominated reach the front page so far, but I've made multiple nominations since and they can't all count as #4 and 5, so I semi-arbitrarily picked the outstanding nominations of mine that were reviewed earliest) but this nomination does now have a QPQ that needs to be double-checked, LavaBaron. Also, in the interest of it not being pulled later (and not having to puzzle out abbreviations), I would be more comfortable if the reviews of my nominations were written out in full, even though the talk page discussion of the issue of whether DYK reviews need to be written out in full has not yet been resolved. A few extra words shouldn't hurt. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. However, there is an "original research" tag in the second paragraph under "Other works" that should be taken care of; perhaps the whole sentence should be deleted? ALT1 is certainly the better hook, especially next to the image. ALT1 hook ref verified and cited inline. Image is freely-licensed. QPQ done. Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Yoninah, thank you for taking over this review. I did indeed remove the sentence (I was actually the one who tagged it OR in the first place; the article creator and I had a difference of opinion on its admissability) and adjusted the following sentence to make up for the lost segue. Should be good now, I hope? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 20:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)