Talk:Frances Darlington

Did you know nomination

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 SL93 talk 19:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Frances Darlington

• ... that although sculptor Frances Darlington was known for her painted relief panels, she also designed a railway poster?

• Source: "(An Ilkley Borough Council committee was formed) ... to bring before the public the advantage of Ilkley, and in answer to an advertisement for designs in posters to be placed at various stations on the different railways, some thirty or more competed for same in colour. (After consideration) they awarded the first prize to Miss Frances Darlington, of Ilkley" - plus loads of sources in the article for her being a sculptor.

• Reviewed: Max Weil
• Comment: Created over some months in userspace, then moved to mainspace 17 June 2024

Created by Storye book (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 106 past nominations.

Storye book (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC).

• New article, well written and high quality (likely suitable for a GA nomination). No copyvio issues found. Hook is interesting, cited in the article, and of appropriate length. My one concern is the licensing of the image. Without the photographer's identity and thus death date, and without proof that it was first published prior to 1929, the claimed license is not valid. PD-old-assumed would be valid given that the image is >120 years old, but an appropriate US copyright tag would still be needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• I have done some further research and updated the licence. Storye book (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Storye book: Good work figuring out the photographer! Unfortunately, US copyright is tricky - proof of pre-1929 publication (or other scenarios) is still needed for it to be public domain in the US. I'm sorry to be pushy about this, but I've seen other hooks get pulled last-minute for similar issues and I don't want that to happen to you. If you're not able to find original publication information, then the hook would be fine without the image, or with one of her artworks (maybe File:Frieze by Darlington (9b) History the Sublime Hymn and Astronomy.jpg). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Fireze by Darlington (detail)

• Thank you for your comment. Here is the image that you requested as a second option.
• Note: I always do my best to cooperate on DYK templates, whether as reviewer, creator or nominator. However I also claim the right to an opinion. In this case, you will see that I am doing my best to cooperate. However, in the (nearly) 20 years that I have been a WP contributor, I have never seen a 120-year-old UK photo refused at DYK on those grounds. This image was a carte de visite, as were most photographs in the UK in 1897. They were purchased in batches and used as visiting cards, and were left at the addresses of acquaintances and businesses in the way that we leave our contact details today. Unlike our contact details today, cartes de visite were expected to be shared around by those who received them, because privacy was not an issue in the way that it is today, and cartes de visite were used as a form of advertisement. If that is not a form of publication, I don't know what is. Storye book (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Storye book: If it's a carte de visite, then I would consider it to have been published. I do think the fireze might be more interesting as a DYK image, since there are a lot of portraits there, but either image is just fine. Great work! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Excessive detail

The article at present contains excessive detail regarding the subject's relatives, including identifying distant relations and detailing a banquet given for the subject's grandfather. The rationale provided for restoring this material was to identify that the subject had a privileged start - there's more than enough there to indicate this already, and these additions do not contribute to that understanding. If anything further streamlining of this section would be warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)