- The following discussion 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Image discussion can take place on article talk
Rover chair edit
- ... that the 1981 Rover chair (pictured) launched the career of designer Ron Arad?
Created/expanded by Trevj (talk). Self nom at 15:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Long and new enough article within policy. Thoroughly referenced. Hook seems fine, QPQ met. Image licensing seems fine. Good to go
--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's good news. However, I was intending to write Kee-Klamp too, and propose an alternative hook containing both. I'm not sure I'll manage to meet the article length requirements though. So then, if an image lead is sought and this fits the bill, then please don't let that comment be an impediment. But if not, then there's no rush. I'll post here either way regarding Kee-Klamp (unless someone else creates it first). Thanks. PS Regarding the image licensing, I found the photo on Flickr but not under a suitable licence. I asked the author to consider changing the licence, for use in a forthcoming article, which was then done. I understand they're now more than pleased to see it included here! -- Trevj (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Even though the photo itself is on Commons, isn't the photographic image of an artwork (the chair) problematic because the chair itself has copyright protection for the artist? This was displayed in an exhibition at the Barbican in 2010, and the photo was taken there. As such, even though the photographer is happy to allow its use, I don't believe the photo is actually eligible for DYK, since it's of a copyrighted artwork. Does anyone know to the contrary? Note that without the photo, the DYK can run; there might be a compelling fair-use argument for the article even if it is copyrighted to the artist, but not for DYK and the Wikipedia main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think you have a very good point. Sorry. I've now started a discussion on Commons, where the issues can hopefully be cleared up. -- Trevj (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Long and new enough article within policy. Thoroughly referenced. Hook seems fine, QPQ met. Image licensing seems fine. Good to go
