Template:Did you know nominations/Beryl Benacerraf
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Beryl Benacerraf
Nuchal translucency scan
- ... that Beryl Benacerraf, pioneer of the nuchal scan (pictured), wrote that dyslexia caused her to live in a world of images where "anomalies jump out at me like a neon sign"? Source: "During residency, I recognized that I had dyslexia. And then I realized I had this gift for imaging. Radiology is where I belonged. I live in a world of patterns and images and I see things that no one else sees. Anomalies jump out at me like a neon sign."
- Reviewed: Edward V. Boursaud
Created by Cbl62 (talk) and JoelleJay (talk). Nominated by Cbl62 (talk) at 11:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC).
- hello, Cbl62! this will be my fifth dyk review, so apologies if i end up making any errors. any suggestions or advice is welcome.
- general: article is new enough and long enough.
- policy: article is sourced and neutral. earwig returns an alarming 42.5% similarity rate with the boston globe source, but most of the similarity comes from two quotes and a large number of names of organizations and titles. the balance comes from short phrases such as "obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology and radiology" and "more than 300 scholarly articles", which i am willing to forgive.
- image:
- image was taken by a wikimedia commons regular. it is used in the article and is clear in the thumbnail provided.
- the photographer has apparently both released the image under cc by-sa 3.0 and excluded it from use on social media. are these two statements compatible? this page on meta suggests that they are not. in any case, the image appears to have been released irrevocably under cc by-sa 3.0 first, in 2011, while the statement regarding social media was apparently added in 2015, so i believe the image is freely licensed, even if the photographer does not wish it to be.
- qpq: not yet provided.
- hooks: hook is under 200 characters, interesting, accurate, cited, and neutral.
- points outside of the dyk criteria:
- wikipedia has an article on nuchal scans, though if it was deliberately not linked, that is fine too.
- i am not sure what parentheticals are usually used for images at dyk, but "(example pictured)" would have likely been used at tfa. feel free to ignore this if "(pictured)" is appropriate here.
- i feel that the paragraph under "Early years" relies a bit too heavily on pronouns.
- both the quote taken from the boston globe and the one taken from the yale center actually appear in two parts in the respective sources. i tend to include an ellipsis in such cases, but do not know if this practice is common on wikipedia. are there any relevant guidelines on this point?
awaiting qpq. dying (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi dying, just wanted to let you know I swapped the pic for a more thematically appropriate one by the same photographer, who gave his endorsement of its use for this article here. The licensing statement regarding social media use says
This specifically excludes use in social media, if applicable terms of the licenses listed here not appropriate.
I interpret the second clause to mean the terms of the licenses supersede the social media exemption. Additionally, the license statesFeel free to use my photos, but please mention me as the author and send me a message
; we have complied with both requests. Regarding some of the text-based issues, I've done some light rewording that will hopefully help. Thanks! JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi dying, just wanted to let you know I swapped the pic for a more thematically appropriate one by the same photographer, who gave his endorsement of its use for this article here. The licensing statement regarding social media use says
- Dying Cbl62, is it possible to change the DYK pic (hmm) to the new picture provided by Dr Moroder? JoelleJay (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Changing the pic is fine with me. I'll try to get the QPQ done by tomorrow. Cbl62 (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, is crediting Dr Moroder in the main page caption allowed, or should it be briefer? JoelleJay (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- okay, Cbl62 and JoelleJay, i apologize for the length of this comment, but the licensing for the newly uploaded image appears to present an interesting issue. it is clear that the photographer is happy to have the picture used in the article, and would likely be happy to see it featured on the main page. however, with the newly uploaded picture, the photographer posted both the cc by-sa 3.0 release statement and the social media restriction notice simultaneously. i am not an expert on copyright law, but i worry if posting both statements simultaneously effectively makes the declaration of the release under cc by-sa 3.0 defective, and therefore not valid. additionally, it is difficult for me to interpret the wording of the social media restriction statement as effectively nullifying the stated restriction, because if this had been the intention, then i question why the statement was posted in the first place.note that the summary of the terms of cc by-sa 3.0 explicitly states that "[n]o additional restrictions" may be applied. i have admittedly not fully studied the gfdl, but i assume that a similar argument applies, as adding additional restrictions goes against many principles of copyleft.i do not know why the photographer chose to include such a restriction regarding posting on social media, but if it was to prevent social media networks from obtaining rights to the photographer's photos beyond what the cc by-sa 3.0 license already allows, it should be noted that other people posting photos (that they do not actually own the copyright of) to social media cannot give away any rights to social media networks that the posters themselves do not have. (this is described further in the link to meta that i had provided above.) caveat: if this is the case, the photographer probably should not post any such photos to social media.the dyk image requirements state that dyk images "must be free and properly licensed" [bold in original; underline added]. my assumption is that, like in many copyleft discussions, "free" refers to "libre" (as in "free speech") rather than "gratis" (as in "free beer"), so if this photo cannot be posted on social media, it is not free. alternatively, if the release was defective, the photo is not properly licensed.as this is only my fifth dyk review, i could be completely wrong with my analysis above. however, i admittedly don't feel comfortable approving the image as is, and would welcome the opinion of another reviewer. alternatively, if the photographer removes the custom restriction, i would be happy to approve the updated image, as i believe it would then be free and properly licensed. of course, if the photographer wishes to keep the social media restriction notice and no other reviewer is willing to approve the updated image, we could always revert back to the original image, which was irrevocably released under cc by-sa 3.0 in 2011.by the way, the fact that the photo links to a page that links to a page on commons that gives credit to the photographer is, i believe, the standard way attribution is done on wikipedia. i do not recall seeing a photographer explicitly credited on the main page, outside of the featured picture section. dying (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Cbl62 and JoelleJay, i could easily be wrong about this, but the doctor's response leads me to believe that there is a significant preference to keep the images off social media, which is apparently incompatible with cc by-sa 3.0. i assume that this preference will prevent us from using the recently uploaded image in the hook.should the previous image be used instead? since the image has already been irrevocably released under cc by-sa 3.0, i believe using the previous image is compatible with the dyk rules. in addition, the image has already been posted to twitter at least once, so i do not know if the damage has already been done, or if the doctor wishes to minimize the number of times the photo is posted to social media. note that there is a twitter account that simply posts dyk hooks, so i believe if the article features only one image, that image will be posted to twitter not long after the hook hits the main page, regardless of whether the hook runs with an image. dying (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Dying, sure we can use the old pic. The uploader is still trying to understand the licensing; it's possible he didn't realize cc-by-sa 3.0 already requires proper attribution etc. and his concerns will be alleviated. JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- JoelleJay, sounds good. i was awaiting a response to your latest comment on the photographer's talk page, but i do not know if one will be forthcoming. if you replace the image in the hook and the article, i can approve the hook now, and we can swap the image back in if the issue is resolved later. dying (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I've replaced the pic again. Hopefully Dr. Moroder will clarify the image restrictions (or someone with a legal background can okay the second pic without needing to change anything). JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- JoelleJay, apologies for not making this more clear before, but the dyk image requirements state that the image in the hook "must already be in the article", so if the initial image is being used in the hook, dyk also requires its use in the article. sorry about troubling you over all these minor image issues! dying (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I've replaced the pic again. Hopefully Dr. Moroder will clarify the image restrictions (or someone with a legal background can okay the second pic without needing to change anything). JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- JoelleJay, sounds good. i was awaiting a response to your latest comment on the photographer's talk page, but i do not know if one will be forthcoming. if you replace the image in the hook and the article, i can approve the hook now, and we can swap the image back in if the issue is resolved later. dying (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Dying, sure we can use the old pic. The uploader is still trying to understand the licensing; it's possible he didn't realize cc-by-sa 3.0 already requires proper attribution etc. and his concerns will be alleviated. JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Cbl62 and JoelleJay, i could easily be wrong about this, but the doctor's response leads me to believe that there is a significant preference to keep the images off social media, which is apparently incompatible with cc by-sa 3.0. i assume that this preference will prevent us from using the recently uploaded image in the hook.should the previous image be used instead? since the image has already been irrevocably released under cc by-sa 3.0, i believe using the previous image is compatible with the dyk rules. in addition, the image has already been posted to twitter at least once, so i do not know if the damage has already been done, or if the doctor wishes to minimize the number of times the photo is posted to social media. note that there is a twitter account that simply posts dyk hooks, so i believe if the article features only one image, that image will be posted to twitter not long after the hook hits the main page, regardless of whether the hook runs with an image. dying (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- okay, Cbl62 and JoelleJay, i apologize for the length of this comment, but the licensing for the newly uploaded image appears to present an interesting issue. it is clear that the photographer is happy to have the picture used in the article, and would likely be happy to see it featured on the main page. however, with the newly uploaded picture, the photographer posted both the cc by-sa 3.0 release statement and the social media restriction notice simultaneously. i am not an expert on copyright law, but i worry if posting both statements simultaneously effectively makes the declaration of the release under cc by-sa 3.0 defective, and therefore not valid. additionally, it is difficult for me to interpret the wording of the social media restriction statement as effectively nullifying the stated restriction, because if this had been the intention, then i question why the statement was posted in the first place.note that the summary of the terms of cc by-sa 3.0 explicitly states that "[n]o additional restrictions" may be applied. i have admittedly not fully studied the gfdl, but i assume that a similar argument applies, as adding additional restrictions goes against many principles of copyleft.i do not know why the photographer chose to include such a restriction regarding posting on social media, but if it was to prevent social media networks from obtaining rights to the photographer's photos beyond what the cc by-sa 3.0 license already allows, it should be noted that other people posting photos (that they do not actually own the copyright of) to social media cannot give away any rights to social media networks that the posters themselves do not have. (this is described further in the link to meta that i had provided above.) caveat: if this is the case, the photographer probably should not post any such photos to social media.the dyk image requirements state that dyk images "must be free and properly licensed" [bold in original; underline added]. my assumption is that, like in many copyleft discussions, "free" refers to "libre" (as in "free speech") rather than "gratis" (as in "free beer"), so if this photo cannot be posted on social media, it is not free. alternatively, if the release was defective, the photo is not properly licensed.as this is only my fifth dyk review, i could be completely wrong with my analysis above. however, i admittedly don't feel comfortable approving the image as is, and would welcome the opinion of another reviewer. alternatively, if the photographer removes the custom restriction, i would be happy to approve the updated image, as i believe it would then be free and properly licensed. of course, if the photographer wishes to keep the social media restriction notice and no other reviewer is willing to approve the updated image, we could always revert back to the original image, which was irrevocably released under cc by-sa 3.0 in 2011.by the way, the fact that the photo links to a page that links to a page on commons that gives credit to the photographer is, i believe, the standard way attribution is done on wikipedia. i do not recall seeing a photographer explicitly credited on the main page, outside of the featured picture section. dying (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, is crediting Dr Moroder in the main page caption allowed, or should it be briefer? JoelleJay (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Changing the pic is fine with me. I'll try to get the QPQ done by tomorrow. Cbl62 (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
