Template:Did you know nominations/London to Brighton in Four Minutes
- 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 97198 (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
London to Brighton in Four Minutes
.jpg)
Title card of 1953 film
- ... that every thirty years the BBC has produced a new version of their 1953 film London to Brighton in Four Minutes (title card pictured)? Source: Numerous, possibly the most succinct from BBC News: "The BBC filmed that journey back in 1953 … Thirty years later it repeated the exercise, observing the changes in the intervening time. Now I've retraced that trip, 60 years on. ...to compare the three journeys through the magic of time-lapse filming."[1]
- ALT1:... that every thirty years the BBC has produced a new version of London to Brighton in Four Minutes (title card pictured), their 1953 time-lapse film of a rail journey? Source: as above.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Harold Finger
- Comment: Moved to mainspace on Wednesday 15:35, 14 August 2019.[2] This article was predated by one on French Wikipedia (!) that I was unaware of until late on and I have not copied it at all. The hook is covered in the penultimate sentence of the section "Subsequent programmes" It is also in the article’s lead, deliberately unreferenced. The YouTube videos have all been uploaded by BBC South.
Created by Thincat (talk). Self-nominated at 10:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
Image eligibility:
- Freely licensed:
- I'm not knowledgeable at picture licencing and would prefer someone else to confirm that this satisfies {{PD-textlogo}} - Used in article:
- Clear at 100px:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
I prefer the main hook as it's catchier. I'd prefer a 2nd opinion on the image being in public domain; my gut says this is probably not eligible under that criterion, but I'm not an expert on picture licencing. Pinging author @Thincat:. Daß Wölf 03:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- N.B. Asked for opinion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#PD-textlogo. Daß Wölf 06:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for looking at this. I uploaded to image to Commons on the basis that it is below the level of originality in both the US and UK. Commons:Threshold of originality. If it is OK in the US but not UK it could be uploaded here. Thincat (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Thincat: That sounds logical. I'm going to
OK it and leave it up to the admin whether to include the picture or not considering Amakuru's argument since that's the only outstanding issue. I'll add that watching these films was not a bad way to spend 15 minutes 
--Daß Wölf 12:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Thincat: That sounds logical. I'm going to
- Thank you very much for looking at this. I uploaded to image to Commons on the basis that it is below the level of originality in both the US and UK. Commons:Threshold of originality. If it is OK in the US but not UK it could be uploaded here. Thincat (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
