Template:Did you know nominations/Thyrsa Frazier Svager
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Thyrsa Frazier Svager
[edit]
Thyrsa Frazier Svager
- ... that African-American mathematics professor Thyrsa Frazier Svager and her physics professor husband Aleksandar Svager lived on one salary to build a scholarship legacy? Source ref #5: a tribute on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TTR_7cyqFQ
- ALT1 ... that African-American mathematics professor and university provost Thyrsa Frazier Svager was at Antioch College with Coretta Scott King? Source ref #5: a tribute on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TTR_7cyqFQ
Created by Hildabast (talk). Self-nominated at 12:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC).
- QPQ review done (1st one) Hildabast (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, and with sources for all content. The only copying found by Earwig was in names of institutions and publications. The QPQ is problematic, both because it duplicated an existing review and because (unlike the review it duplicated) it missed the fact that a QPQ was needed there. However, QPQ check found that the nominator had only three prior DYKs, so a QPQ is not actually needed here, and should not block this nomination.
- The use of a youtube video as a hook source (for both hooks) is a little dubious, but the same information is also present in [1], which (although published by the foundation handling her fund) seems reliable enough. The original hook is far more interesting than ALT1, so let's go with that one.
- However, the photo cannot be used without OTRS confirmation that the copyright holder (probably the original photographer who took the photo) has released it to the public domain, because the page it's from (owned by the Dayton Foundation) has an incompatible copyright notice.
- In summary: ok to go with original hook but no photo, not ok otherwise. And if the image cannot be properly licensed, it should also either be removed from the article, or given a proper fair-use rationale. Hildabast, how strongly do you feel about including the photo? If you do want to include it, please see Commons:OTRS for what would be required to license it properly. If such a license turns out not to be available, but you still want to keep the picture in the article on a fair-use basis, see WP:FAIRUSE for how to re-upload it on that basis (to Wikipedia, not to commons) and properly tag it as being fair use. And in any case, can you please replace the YouTube source with the web source linked above? YouTube can be used as an external link in this case, but not generally as an article source. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you! Sorry about messing up with QPQ - still figuring out how DYK works. Happy to let it go forward without the photo - waiting for OTRS would likely take a long time. In terns of the article, I can go the fair use route, but I don't see why that's necessary as the individual photo is marked public domain. Agree about sticking with the first one, as the second one had some info that I think was only in the YouTube video.Hildabast (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Either removing the image from the article or fixing the license on commons is necessary. It is marked as public domain on commons, but I don't find that believable, because it is also marked as coming from a web site that labels its content as being copyrighted. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- The specific image is marked public domain: while I agree that sometimes a website that labels its content as copyrighted has no exceptions, that is far from always the case - just as websites that are in the public domain, sometimes include images that are exceptions and are copyrighted. If you scroll down the page to look at that image, you can see that it is specifically marked as in the public domain.Hildabast (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok then, since that was the only remaining issue, let's mark this as good to go (possibly including the photo). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- The specific image is marked public domain: while I agree that sometimes a website that labels its content as copyrighted has no exceptions, that is far from always the case - just as websites that are in the public domain, sometimes include images that are exceptions and are copyrighted. If you scroll down the page to look at that image, you can see that it is specifically marked as in the public domain.Hildabast (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Either removing the image from the article or fixing the license on commons is necessary. It is marked as public domain on commons, but I don't find that believable, because it is also marked as coming from a web site that labels its content as being copyrighted. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you! Sorry about messing up with QPQ - still figuring out how DYK works. Happy to let it go forward without the photo - waiting for OTRS would likely take a long time. In terns of the article, I can go the fair use route, but I don't see why that's necessary as the individual photo is marked public domain. Agree about sticking with the first one, as the second one had some info that I think was only in the YouTube video.Hildabast (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- In summary: ok to go with original hook but no photo, not ok otherwise. And if the image cannot be properly licensed, it should also either be removed from the article, or given a proper fair-use rationale. Hildabast, how strongly do you feel about including the photo? If you do want to include it, please see Commons:OTRS for what would be required to license it properly. If such a license turns out not to be available, but you still want to keep the picture in the article on a fair-use basis, see WP:FAIRUSE for how to re-upload it on that basis (to Wikipedia, not to commons) and properly tag it as being fair use. And in any case, can you please replace the YouTube source with the web source linked above? YouTube can be used as an external link in this case, but not generally as an article source. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
