Jump to content

Talk:Nina Demme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photographs to be worked out

[edit]
Obviously these photos were published abroad and then published in variations in the US within 30 days. Spark published 36 volumes in 1932, thus volume #29 was published in October, making all US variations fall within 30 days. According to this the photographs follow the US rules for photos published between 1925 and 1977. I have looked at hundreds of publications of the photographs and none give an author. There is a handwritten statement on version 3 "International Newsreel", but that appears to be the only marking. Checking Periodicals copyright for 1932 I get no results for "Demme", "Arctic", "polar", "Riabtzova", and "Petrovna". Checking Works of Art for 1932 I get no hits for "Demme", "Riabtzova", or "Petrovna", but there are hits for both Arctic and polar, none of which relate to Demme. Checking copyright.gov, I get no results for "Nina Demme", "Nina Petrovna" or "Nina Riabtzova" as a title, name, or keyword. Though Riabtzova is the spelling that appeared in English newspapers, I also checked "Ryabtseva" and "Ryabtsova" and found no results as a title, name, or keyword. I think this falls under {{PD-Russia-1996}} as it is anonymous, was published before January 1, 1943, and "the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication". In the US, it would be no notice.
Delving further, these appear to have been taken by ACME Newspictures, which makes sense since NEA was their distributor. These appear to be separate shots that were cobbled together and distributed, as can be seen here and here Checking Periodicals copyright for 1931 I get no results for "Demme", "Arctic", "polar", "Riabtzova", "Petrovna", "Franz Joseph Land", "Acme", "NEA", or "Newspaper Enterprise Association". Checking Works of Art for 1931 for each of those, I get no result either. Based on the previous search of copyright.gov there were no renewals for anything having to do with Demme, I searched for "Franz Joseph Land" as a title, name, or keyword and got no result. As the author is ACME Newspictures, I also searched for that as the "claimant" and get no results. Thus, I think these are {{PD-US-no notice}}. I personally like the grouping rather than the individual image.
  • (Side glance) Photo: This (which IMO is the better photograph) does not indicate who took it, but it appears to be the same as this AP Photo. Checking Works of Art for 1932 for Associated Press, there are 2 hits (and an index notification). Neither of them have anything to do with Demme. As stated above copyright.gov search shows no hits for Demme. As far as I can tell, the first publication of this photo was on 9 September 1932 in the Minneapolis Tribune. I see nothing that indicates the photograph or the newspaper was copyrighted. Masthead/Publication Info does not indicate any copyright, thus it would seem to fall into {{PD-US-no notice}}.
  • (Half length with dog) Photo: This does not appear to have been published in the US. I have searched hundreds of photographs on newspapers.com and newspaperarchives.com and find no proof of publishing. It would appear that the first publication was in Russia in November 1930, and the photograph itself is not credited to anyone. If however Leonid Muhanov who published the piece took the photograph (and he did participate in the 1930 trip), I am not sure, as his dates are (according to the link) 1906-1976.
GRuban You are better at this than me. Can you tell me if my analysis is right and we can use the first 3? I am not sure about the 4th one, at all. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would also be helpful to have a map, i.e. this appears to show both Franz Joseph Land (though it needs to be marked) and Severnaya Zemlya. Looking at Google maps, it would seem that the clump of islands at the very top of the map on commons are Franz Joseph Land. If you concur, I can have the Graphics lab add that identification. SusunW (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I give up any and all claims of superiority in being a photo researcher, you did great work. Let me name the photos above, (Ear flap hat)(Smiling hair bun)(Side glance)(Half length with dog). I agree, the first three can be used per your excellent analysis, and while the half length photo should, until other evidence occurs, be considered the work of the author of the article, so unfortunately still copyrighted until 2046 or so. The first, ear flap hat, photo is marked at the bottom of the last version "Photos Soyuzfoto" which seems from two of our articles to be an early Soviet era news agency. That doesn't affect the analysis, but we can mention that in the "author" field. Yes, I agree a map would be nice; our article Severnaya Zemlya and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Severnaya_Zemlya have more than I can shake a stick at, and I completely trust you can select the best. --GRuban (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nina Demme/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Enwebb (talk · contribs) 14:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one. I'll add some comments later today. Enwebb (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

General comments

[edit]
  • Avoid calling the subject (and others) by their first names alone (MOS:SURNAME)
Can you point to where the concern is? The only time I see reference to first name only is at her birth, where she was given only one name because the legalities of how to register her (and her siblings) hadn't been worked out. Sources are unclear as to why she was the only one of her siblings able to use forged documents to carry her father's surname, so it seemed important to point out that the surnames were different. SusunW (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like her father is called just "Ludwig" here Ryabtsova, Ludwig, and her children... and Ludwig was fond of birds. If you want to avoid confusion with Nina Demme, you could use the full name?
 Done SusunW (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was an illegitimate child of a polyamorous household which was made up of her father's first wife and nine children, and her mother and mother's children, who were Valya and Kolya by her first husband, a German surnamed Huber, and Nina, Julia, and Seryozha with her father. can you split this into two sentences? It's a bit long
 Done I broke it into 3 if that works. SusunW (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency in whether or not you're using an oxford comma (a bit nitpicky, not necessary for GA criteria but just pointing it out)
I only found one instance where an Oxford comma was not used. Perhaps you can be more specific? SusunW (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
was a Russian polar explorer, biologist and ornithologist. I think that's all
 Done SusunW (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was allowed to buy a summer house allowed by whom?
I would guess Soviet authorities? Private ownership was not allowed in the Soviet period, but stating who authorized her ownership would go beyond what sources provide, to my mind. SusunW (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks. Enwebb (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nadezhda Krupskaya is identified as Lenin's wife in the lead but not in the body
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be nice to use {{convert}} for 5354 kg
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still need to do image checks, but I'll come back to this tomorrow. Enwebb (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enwebb Thank you so much for the review. I really appreciate it. The detailed photo analysis is on the talk page of the article, if that helps. Let me know if you need anything else or if I can help clarify anything. SusunW (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry, something urgent has come up in real life and I haven't had much time for Wikipedia. I hadn't realized the images were checked already on the talk page, so thank you for pointing that out. Enwebb (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would that I knew. The Australian article was the only one that gave any time frame for any of the marriages. The family remembrances (see Note 2) were that her husbands were Ganya, Petr, Vanya, and Volodya. If I were guessing, since they remembered Petr best, he was last. And given name similarity Ivanov was probably Vanya and Ioylev probably Ganya, making the unknown one Volodya somebody, but that would be pure conjecture. I couldn't find any documents, sorry. SusunW (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Totally get real life complications, it's been crazy here too with a major tropical storm, but we survived it intact. Again I thank you Enwebb for your willingness to review and help improve the article. SusunW (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, looks good to me! Clearly meets all the criteria. Enwebb (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]