Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Metlay Kaufman
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Article was not eligible for DYK due to the copying from public domain sources thing, but it may become eligible if the article is improved to GA status.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mary Metlay Kaufman
Mary M. Kaufman preparing for a session of the Nuremberg Trials.
- ... that Mary Metlay Kaufman (pictured) used the Nuremberg principles as a guiding force in her defense of political activists? Source: Vile 2001 (offline source)
Created by Shockofsputnik (talk). Nominated by Paul2520 (talk) at 19:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC).
- Looks good! Article is recent (started on August 8 and nominated on August 15), substantial length, reasonably sourced, neutral enough. The content is largely from a CC-BY source, appropriately credited. I'm assuming good faith on the hook citation, since it's reasonable in the context of the other material in the article. The picture derives from a strong free source (NARA), and it's clear even at a small size. Hook is interesting to me. QPQ is done. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Dreamyshade, Paul2520, I don't think this is currently eligible for DYK as WP:DYKCRIT says "text copied verbatim from public domain sources, or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded ... from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles" and most of the content was added in the first edit, which "added text from CC-BY licensed source". TSventon (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh, you're right! I missed that part of the more detailed rules, thank you for catching it. I've removed my approval symbol. It's a nice article, but yes, sounds like it would either need a couple substantial new paragraphs or to go through the Good Article process before qualifying here. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Shockofsputnik: Thoughts? Do you think additional content can be added, or would you rather potentially go through the good article (GA) process? = paul2520 💬 16:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Paul2520: Shockofsputnik hasn't edited since August 13, so if you're considering bringing this to GA, it may have to happen without her involvement. Would you be willing to bring the article to GA on your own? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Shockofsputnik: Thoughts? Do you think additional content can be added, or would you rather potentially go through the good article (GA) process? = paul2520 💬 16:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 yep, I'm willing to work on the GA process. Is there a procedure to withdraw this nomination?
cc: Dreamyshade, Shockofsputnik, and TSventon. = paul2520 💬 16:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Since you've indicated you'd rather withdraw the nomination, I've closed the nomination. You may renominate the article if the article is brought to GA status. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)