Talk:515 North Washington Street

515 North Washington Street has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 8, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 515 North Washington Street article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: National / North America / United States / American Civil War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia: Northern Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Northern Virginia Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:515 North Washington Street/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 13:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reliable.

Do we know when File:Express Spark Plug Company Alexandria.jpg was first published? If not I think it would be safer to move this to en-wiki and treat it as fair use, which I think would justifiable.
~~"The most likely origin is that it had been likely placed there sometime around 1920 by the Bureau of Fisheries to advertise angling": two uses of "likely".~~
"The more well-known rumor to its origin is that local police placed the mannequin in the cupola as a way to trick the person or people responsible for the 1854 murder of Michael Kiggin to return to the building, where they would be caught": I don't follow -- why would the murderers return because they could see someone in the cupola?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source said the photo was taken around 1918. Do you think it needs a fair use if there's a difference between when the photo was taken and when it was possibly published? In regards to the murderers, I see what you mean about the wording. Hopefully it's clearer now. APK whisper in my ear 10:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re the picture, yes, it matters when it was published. If you take a photo in 1900 and first publish it in 2020, it counts as 2020 for copyright. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done APK whisper in my ear 06:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

FN 4 cites "One of the tenants, realtor Bud Jordan, found Oscar in the attic. He dressed it in one of his suits and placed it beside a lamp in the cupola. He later told a reporter "People used to stop and come into the office and say, you know there's a guy up there and he doesn't seem to be moving? I know that's my suit and tie and hat that we dressed him in. Real estate was down at the time because we had nothing better to do." -- verified.
FN 12 cites "There is an adjoining park and an event space on the top floor with views of Old Town Alexandria and the Potomac River": verified.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image change is done, so passing. The image is oversized for fair use but I'm going to let that go as a bot will fix it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that image of the building from the Express Sparkplug era meets the non-free content criteria. The stated purpose in the non-free usage rationale is for visual identification. That purpose is fulfilled with a freely licensed image in the infobox and so does not meet WP:NFCC#1. Furthermore, photo is from 1918, and although this particular photo cannot be verified to be PD, it is reasonable to think that there may be another photo from that era out there that was published prior to 1927 and would be in the public domain. See my post to APK's talk page for a bit more detail. I think this can be overcome with a change to the stated purpose, and a diligent search for PD photos though. -- Whpq (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see the argument, and I agree it's at least debatable. I'm watching the article and this GA page (we should probably have the discussion on the talk page, not here, since the GAN is over) and will chip in if I can be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]