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.
... that Titane, the first feature film of French actress Agathe Rousselle, won the Palme d'Or at the 2021 Cannes Film Festival? Source: "Julia Ducournau’s “Titane,” a wild, body-horror thriller featuring sex with a car and a surprisingly tender heart, won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, making Ducournau just the second female filmmaker to win the festival’s top honor in its 74 year history." "In “Titane,” which like “Parasite” will be distributed in the U.S. by Neon, Agathe Rousselle plays a serial killer who flees home." Los Angeles Times
Not a review: Concerning the artwork, I personally find very questionable the practice whereby wikipedia authors create fan artwork of celebrities, which they release as PD, and use that to illustrate articles about the said celebrities. I would assume that the standard for illustrations should be that they have to exist in the real world and either be allowed for publication by an illustrator who has gained some notoriety there, in the outside world (or at least has been face-to-face with the celebrity being depicted), or that they be PD by virtue of being old. Dahn (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Definately a view Not "questionable" per se IMO. Its a donation to the project just like this bit of text and the bit above. We welcome any positive contribution. If the artwork may be useful then we should say thank you (which I have already done). If it looks like the person and it is not unpleasant in any way then we should include it in our articles if it is the best image. If a debate is to be held about art donations then it should be done elsewhere and not using this generous contribution as an example. We are short of 1000s of images of people and we need all useful help. Victuallers (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@Victuallers: I would just like to comment that this would entitle any amateur artist willing to draw after a photograph to upload their portrait of a person on wikipedia, and have their artistic creation featured as encyclopedic content, in fact even as a way of promoting themselves. Im pretty good with a pencil myself; should I start drawing faces of people we don't have photographs of as an addition to the articles? Is this expected of an encyclopedia? Also note where this is already leading: we can apparently debate, then somehow objectively decide, whether the amateurs artwork is pleasant or unpleasant; whereas a photograph is simply what it is, and whereas a picture done by someone actually acquainted with the person theyre portraying would be a notable artwork, whether pleasant or not.
(NB: Im not asking for the image to be deleted from Commons, where we can of course accept all such donations; Im questioning whether it belongs in the article, and, even more than that, whether it belongs on the Main Page -- something which I think is also relevant to the discussion here, where this is being proposed.) Dahn (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@Victuallers: Yes, this has come up many times before, and even on articles we are generally very suspicious of editor-created "portraits", not least because they often copy too closely, and so breach the copyright of, another image, and we just don't know. In jact many have been deleted from Commons I think. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Well I have this tendency to AGF. These dangers you speak of are true of text too, and we cope with that, not to mention the ease of photographing a photo. We do have artist portraits all over historic images and many of them are "after" another portrait and diagrams by the dozen. What evidence do we have to base suspicions on? We go have tools for finding similar images and we can ask for provenance. Victuallers (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@Victuallers: In those historic cases the artists are known in their own right, and usually have had the person portrayed sit for them (as close as you got to a photograph); those cases where we use a painting by artist Y imagining what X wouldve looked like (as in: Jesus or Plato), the artist or work is usually well known, with an artistic worth that is a cultural topic of its own. That is also the case when we ask a known contemporary artist to allow us to use their work as illustration. This case, and any similar ones, are of artists who aren't known in their own right; they produce images for purposes that are not encyclopedic -- either self-promotion (to have their work and name appear somewhere) or sheer fancy (treating Wikipedia like their personal art project). What they produce may or may not be manipulated photos (if they are, then, per Johnbod, they also breach copyright law), but, since there is no indication that they ever met the person depicted, they most likely work from photographs. 00:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Overall: The article is fine, and in spite of the discussion above, I am happy with the portrait image, which looks like Rouselle, and is of satisfactorily professional quality in my opinion. One issue: copyvio found by Earwig: "Rousselle (born 14 June 1988) is a French journalist, model, and actress. She is the co-founder of feminist magazine Peach and a custom embroidery". {The above QPQ link is wrongly linked; it is here: Template:Did you know nominations/Music Box Theatre - and it is OK). If you can rephrase the copyvio passage, then this nom should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The copyvio is from a website which I believe copied Wikipedia. I did not consult that website in creating this article. Thriley (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, you are right. I have checked that website and I agree that it's copying from other websites including WP - so thank you for your patience.. This is good to go. Storye book (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The article is fine, and in spite of the discussion above, I am happy with the portrait image, which looks like Rouselle, and is of satisfactorily professional quality in my opinion. 
Thank you, you are right. I have checked that website and I agree that it's copying from other websites including WP - so thank you for your patience.. This is good to go. Storye book (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)