Template:Did you know nominations/Althea Wynne
- The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Althea Wynne
[edit]
- ... that three ten-feet-high bronze horses in the City of London by the English sculptor Althea Wynne have been nicknamed "Sterling, Dollar, and Yen"?
- Reviewed: Paspalum vaginatum
Created/expanded by Moonraker (talk). Self nom at 09:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Article is new enough and long enough and is generally supported by reliable source material. The hook is short
enough and interesting enough. The cited source for the hook fact is on google books, but the particular page cited is blocked for me when I tried to look at it. I assume good faith on the part of a long-time contributor. Spot-checking here doesn't show evidence of copyvio or unduly close paraphrasing. Cbl62 (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- NB, since the above review, I have added an image. Here is another one, which in my view is not so good but may have an advantage as a thumbnail. There is nowhere in the original hook where the word "pictured" fits comfortably, so may I suggest the following alt?
- Alt1... that in the City of London, where they stand, three ten-feet-high bronze horses (pictured) by the English sculptor Althea Wynne have been nicknamed "Sterling, Dollar, and Yen"?
- The alt hook looks ok, but I'm not sure about the photo. The photos have a creative commons license from the photographer, but I'm not sure that is sufficient. The photographs are of a work of art created c. 1988. In the US, I don't think a photograph of a recent work of art like this is properly featured on the main page. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the copyright issue can chime in on the use of the photo. Cbl62 (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me quite unlikely that the creator of a statue, especially one in a public place, can claim any copyright in photographs of it. If he or she could, then where do we draw the line as the camera moves back and the statue becomes a smaller feature of the photograph? Anyway, I do not know exactly what the position is and hope someone will come along who does. Moonraker (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm no expert, but I've learned that under US law that the framing is of importance. If the photograph is of a public square or stree scened and incidentally includes a copyrighted artwork, that should be fine. But if the framing focuses closely on the work of art, it can be problematic. I've had some of my photographs of public art in the US deleted under that rationale. On the other hand, some counties (Mexico, for example) have provisions in their copyight laws specifically stating that artwork in public places is not copyright proteced. I have no idea what English provides on this point, but this tag {{FoP-UK}} which I found on a sculpture photo on Commons sugests that England has an exempion for public art similar to what I've encountered in Mexico. Hopefully, someone with greater expertise can give an ok on the image, which is nice. Cbl62 (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- See: Commons page on Freedom of Panorama. it basicly says that it is ok to upload images of statues located in the United Kingdom as long as they are located in a public place. The same is not true for in the United States.--Found5dollar (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)