Talk:Anna Russell Cole

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 07:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Anna Russell Cole c. 1911

• ... that Anna Russell Cole (pictured), a devout Methodist, was instrumental in supporting Vanderbilt University's independence from the church, donating significantly to its endowment campaign? Source: Turner, William B. (February 2000). "Cole, Anna Virginia Russell". American National Biography. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.2001271.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: year (link) (subscription required), Notable American Women, 1607-1950 A Biographical Dictionary · Volume 2, page 358
  • ALT0a: ... that Anna Russell Cole (pictured), a devout Methodist, was key in supporting Vanderbilt University's independence from the church's hierarchy, donating to its endowment campaign? Source: Same as above.
  • ALT1: ... that in 1926, Anna Russell Cole (pictured), a significant benefactor of Vanderbilt University, donated $10,000 to endow the office of dean of women? Source: Same as above.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Eurovision Song Contest 1974
  • Comment: QPQ will be done promptly. Done.

Created by Xoak (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

X (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - ?

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Xoak: The article is new enough, as it was created on May 16 and nominated on May 17. It is long enough. There is a source appended to every paragraph. It is written with a neutral, encyclopedic tone, and the hooks are cited properly and are interesting. (The angle of ALT0 is evidently that Cole being devout, a contemporary reader might expect her to support church control of the university; instead, she considered the university's independence important enough to financially support. The angle of ALT1 is simply that she was a fiscally abundant benefactor.) I am presuming good faith about content cited to Tinling (1986) to which I don't have ready access as well as about content cited to Cole (2007) as I don't have a means of accessing the work's first volume (I checked Open Library but was only able to borrow volume 3 of Dictionary of Women Worldwide: 25,000 Women Through the Ages ). There are, however, seven six matters about which I seek resolution prior to approving the nomination:

First, Cole (2007) is credited to Anna Russell Cole according to your citation. Is the content on page 413 of Dictionary of Women Worldwide a (posthumously published) autobiography by Cole? Or is the name of the author just a particularly unusual coincidence? Or is this a citation reference formatting issue?

Second, Upon returning to Augusta, Cole taught French and German at a local girls' school may constitute close paraphrasing of On returning to Augusta, Russell taught French and German at a local girls’ school (Turner 2000). If you consider this information necessary to include, is there a way to rephrase or reorganize so as to not so closely paraphrase?

Third, the article states Edmund Cole had five children from a previous marriage. However, Radcliffe College (1971) calls him a widower with seven children at the time of his marriage to Anna Russell Cole, sounding like he had the seven children at the time of the marriage.

Fourth, I can't help but think that the article should explain that"Colemere" was the name/nickname of Anna Russell Cole's house in Nashville. I also think her death place should just be given as Nashville; infoboxes seem usually just name municipal locations, not the specific buildings of one's death.

Fifth, the sentence Cole supported international peace efforts, attending a conference in Vienna in 1916, writing an editorial for the Nashville Tennessean in support of Woodrow Wilson, and donating $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 1920 makes it sound as though the Wilson editorial and DNC donations were a subset of her international peace efforts. However, Turner (2000) frames it almost the other way: her international peace activism was a subset of her support for Woodrow Wilson. I'm also concerned that this may be too close a paraphrase and would be grateful for some alternative presentation of the information.

Sixth, She also had an interest in the arts and was a patron of various cultural institutions. is cited to Turner (2000) but I can't seem to verify it in that source. I can accept the possibility that my eyes are somehow glazing past it; I just would appreciate the verification being pointed out to me, or a quotation provided.

Seventh, I have questions about the copyright status of the image selected, as it appears to be a portrait painting hung on a wall. As WP:PUBLICDOMAIN explains, [b]ecause an artwork is not published by being exhibited, and also neither by being created or sold, one needs to know when reproductions of the artwork (photos, postcards, lithographs, casts of statues, and so on) were first published. That constitutes publication of the artwork, and from then on, the work is subject to all the rules for published works. The upload on Wikimedia Commons was certainly made in good faith, but it doesn't establish when the work was published in a manner that would clarify its copyright status. Although works created by creators who died more than 70 years ago fall into the public domain if they are only first published after 2003, the source for the image, the Tennessee Portrait Project, reports that it was digitally compiling portraits as early as January 2003, meaning it's not for sure whether the work was published during or after 2003. Evidence for the image's public domain status needs to be provided, or it needs to be relicensed as fair non-free use (because Cole is dead and it is not possible to get a better image of her without just copying this portrait which would be worse to do) and excluded from the hook. [I have struck the seventh matter on discovering I slightly misread c:File:PD-US_table.svg and WP:PUBLICDOMAIN, which states that works by creators who died more than 70 years ago fall into the public domain if they are first published after 2002. As the Tennessee Portrait Project's earliest documentation of portraits was January 2003, this places it after 2002 and therefore means the portrait is in the public domain. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)]

While these matters are several, the article's in otherwise good shape. I'll be happy to approve the nomination once these are resolved.

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Xoak: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• According to their user page, they are on wikibreak and do not expect to return until late August. If they return soon, I have no objection to somebody reopening this, but for now I'm going to mark it closed. RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Ah, that turn of events is too bad. I guess maybe Xoak thought the review would wrap up before their break started but then that didn't happen. I don't suppose there's any way around this? Could some other user take on responsibility for the nomination/making the needed fixes? I mean, I could probably make the fixes, just by rewriting the CLOP parts and cutting the unverified sentence.
  (Also, you stated that you're marking it as closed, but it seems to not be? In the sense that there's no green box around this; there's just the delete icon you added?) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans: If you're happy to adopt this nomination, I am happy to review it.--Launchballer 08:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I'm happy to adopt the nomination. I just went over the article, and I think I've fixed everything I identified in my own review. I was even able to access Dictionary of Women Worldwide (and it turns out "Cole (2007)" was an encyclopedic entry titled "Cole, Anna Russell") and do some verification checking for portions cited to that. Thanks for being willing to review the nomination while I adopt it, and let me know if there's anything else to address. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think they have been as well. I prefer ALT1 and AGF that one. Long enough, new enough. No copyright concerns, no maintence templates deserved. I don't know what the rules are for QPQs for adopted nominations; as Xoak already supplied one, I think we're good. Let's roll.--Launchballer 07:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)