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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Created by Eddie891 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC).
I will pick this review up. However, the article is not sourced with multiple paragraphs missing citations. Please can you take a pass at that. Ktin (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Article meets eligibility criteria (newness, length). Article is well sourced with many offline sources on which I will assume good faith on. Scores quite high on the copyvio report. However, this is because of a review of the poem from a book that is used as-is and the poem itself which is obviously used as-is. Question to the nominator -- is there an issue in quoting the text of the poem as-is? I am not clear on copyright rules in this context? Is it considered alright because the poem is more than 100 years old? QPQ done. Validated the hook's source using the Archive.org link. Passing the baton back to the nominator for a few of these answers. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ktin: the poem and the long quote are both in the public domain as they were published before 1926 in the United States. There’s a precedent for including the full text of reasonably short poems that are in the public domain— see my fa O Captain! My Captain! or the recent creation Mother to Son where I do the same. Cheers, Eddie891TalkWork 11:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Approved. Updating review based on above comment. Thanks for the nomination. Ktin (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Article meets eligibility criteria (newness, length). Article is well sourced with many offline sources on which I will assume good faith on. Scores quite high on the copyvio report. However, this is because of a review of the poem from a book that is used as-is and the poem itself which is obviously used as-is. Question to the nominator -- is there an issue in quoting the text of the poem as-is? I am not clear on copyright rules in this context? Is it considered alright because the poem is more than 100 years old? QPQ done. Validated the hook's source using the Archive.org link. Passing the baton back to the nominator for a few of these answers. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
