- 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) 06:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Naomi Parker edit
J. Howard Miller's inspirational poster
- ... that the Woozle effect delayed Naomi Parker Fraley's identification as the most likely model for We Can Do It! (pictured)?
- Reviewed: Pyramid of Neferirkare
- Comment: The hook may be confirmed by Kimble's paper or the summary of it published by TIME.
Created by Victuallers (talk) and Mervat Salman (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 21:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC).
Interesting, on good sources, no copyvio opvious. The hook is fine and sourced. The image is license and a must. I made some little edits, revert if you don't like. Article:
- Her name. If her common name is Naomi Parker, that should be on top of the infobox, while Fraley is under "other_names", and Parker should be used in the article. If Naomi Fraley is her common name, that should be the article name, Parker the "birth_name", and Parker should be used as long as she isn't married to Fraley. "Fraley was born" makes no sense, whatever decision. You avoid it by just saying "she", but at least at the beginning of each section, there should be a name. If her common name is Parker Fraley, - well, imagine. The decision should be taken to the hook, of course.
- Terms: it's probably just me who doesn't know what a vertical shaper is, and a lathe.
- I wonder if telling her life first, and then the poster story, might work better.
- Please give a time to the Kimble, instead of "meanwhile".
- "Main article" is not needed for something so visible ;)
- These are mostly suggestions, but the name question needs sorting before I can approve. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the quick review. Regarding the name: two separate pages were started when her death was in the news recently: Naomi Parker and Naomi Parker Fraley. The shorter article was merged into the larger one and that's what we have now. The current sources, such as the BBC, NYT and Times call her "Naomi Parker Fraley" while an older source, People magazine, have "Naomi Parker-Fraley". To get the article name back to Naomi Parker Fraley would require some moving but we should agree a consensus for that. What do @Victuallers: and @Mervat Salman: think? Otherwise, I have put in wikilinks for shaper and lathe and we'll see about the other suggestions.
- Note that it would be nice if we could run this soon on Saturday, Feb 3 because there's an event in London for which this would make a good talking point and example. It's about the Future of Wikipedia and will be led by the directors of the WMF and WMUK – Katherine Maher and Lucy Crompton-Reid. Can We Do It? Andrew D. (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I changed the name, - now please find someone to move it. If I was you, I'd mention in the lead where the iconic photo was taken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've moved the article to Naomi Parker Fraley. Thanks for the nom. Andrew (and Gerda for the review). I'm happy to go with the consensus (or the boldest editor) on the issues above. This was a great collaboration and reminded me of DYK some years ago - so even better to see the article nominated by Andrew. Victuallers (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the praise of collaboration, but have sad news for you: the image was already on DYK, in 2012, with the poster. By the rulez, it's not eligible a second time. You can do two things: go to DYKTALK and ask for an exception, or use the photo of her, which is actually closer to her life than the poster. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing such a rule at WP:DYKIMG. Articles can't be run if they have appeared before but this just the image. The other images can't be used instead because they are fair-use, not free. And please be aware of the theme here – We Can Do It! I nominated the article at ITN but it got mired in such pettifoggery and so was not run. ITN can't do it so we need to show that DYK can. Andrew D. (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Let's not confuse two things: The DYK can run, it's approved. However, to my knowledge, an image can't be shown twice on DYK, and this one appeared in 2012. Don't ask me where a rule is, rulez are not my topic. Better expect this to be run without image, or get the other one on board, rewording the hook in both cases. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- The rules for DYK are listed at WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG. I've just been through them all again to double-check and again found no such rule for images. Andrew D. (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I can't remember such a rule either Victuallers (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Even better. I remember it, but it may be gone, and that would be an improvement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I can't remember such a rule either Victuallers (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- The rules for DYK are listed at WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG. I've just been through them all again to double-check and again found no such rule for images. Andrew D. (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Let's not confuse two things: The DYK can run, it's approved. However, to my knowledge, an image can't be shown twice on DYK, and this one appeared in 2012. Don't ask me where a rule is, rulez are not my topic. Better expect this to be run without image, or get the other one on board, rewording the hook in both cases. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing such a rule at WP:DYKIMG. Articles can't be run if they have appeared before but this just the image. The other images can't be used instead because they are fair-use, not free. And please be aware of the theme here – We Can Do It! I nominated the article at ITN but it got mired in such pettifoggery and so was not run. ITN can't do it so we need to show that DYK can. Andrew D. (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the praise of collaboration, but have sad news for you: the image was already on DYK, in 2012, with the poster. By the rulez, it's not eligible a second time. You can do two things: go to DYKTALK and ask for an exception, or use the photo of her, which is actually closer to her life than the poster. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've moved the article to Naomi Parker Fraley. Thanks for the nom. Andrew (and Gerda for the review). I'm happy to go with the consensus (or the boldest editor) on the issues above. This was a great collaboration and reminded me of DYK some years ago - so even better to see the article nominated by Andrew. Victuallers (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Tom Morris's parody of the We Can Do It! poster
- ALT1: ... that the Woozle effect delayed Naomi Parker Fraley's identification as the most likely model for much parodied We Can Do It! poster (parody pictured)?
- Only in need ;) - I'd prefer not to limit what we can do, to "edit". We can do more! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just for fun: do you see what I see? (on top: 100 vrouwen in 100 dagen! with the alt image ;) - don't know how long they keep it) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
<== Reminder that its approved and no one seems to able to find a rule to say that we cannot use the first image. On Feb 8th it will be 100 years since the first UK women got the vote. Thank you. Victuallers (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: re-running images is not a problem. We've run some of your opera images and Martin Luther numerous times. Perhaps you are just remembering the last time we didn't run one of your opera images because it had run previously that year? Yoninah (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Due to potential issues raised at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 146#We can do it! by Black Kite and Yoninah (if the article becomes a redirect, then obviously it can't be run at DYK) and the suggestion from Gerda Arendt that we save this for International Women's Day, I've removed this from the prep that would be promoted to the main page in a bit over 16 hours, reopened this page, and placed the template in the special occasions section for IWD while the issues are being considered. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Are you happy for this to go ahead now? Nobody is going to notice it while it is in the special occasions holding area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, the people to be asking are Black Kite and Yoninah, based on those potential issues I mentioned. I do agree with Yoninah that having an image run several years ago is no bar to it being run again; it's a recent appearance of the same image, or more than one recent appearance of a person, place, or thing (even if different images) that could prevent a reappearance. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. @Black Kite and Yoninah: Are you happy for this to go ahead, and if so, with which hook? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, the people to be asking are Black Kite and Yoninah, based on those potential issues I mentioned. I do agree with Yoninah that having an image run several years ago is no bar to it being run again; it's a recent appearance of the same image, or more than one recent appearance of a person, place, or thing (even if different images) that could prevent a reappearance. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Are you happy for this to go ahead now? Nobody is going to notice it while it is in the special occasions holding area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)