- 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 97198 (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cecelia Goetz
... that Cecelia Goetz delivered the opening statement in the Krupp Trial on December 8, 1947, the only woman to give an opening statement at the Nuremberg trials? Thus [Goetz] became the only woman to give an opening statement at Nuremberg (p. 5)ALT1:... that Cecelia Goetz was offered a supervisory role at the United States Department of Justice—the first woman to receive such an opportunity—but declined it to serve as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials? … Cecelia Goetz, the first female attorney to be offered a supervisory role at the department – an offer she turned down in order to come to NurembergALT2:... that, in order to serve as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, Cecelia Goetz had to receive a disability waiver from chief prosecutor Telford Taylor because she was a woman? she decided to make a direct appeal to Telford Taylor, the chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg. … 'Nevertheless, in order for me to be processed, Taylor had to sign a “waiver of disability” form—the disability being the fact that I was a woman.' (p. 184; source may require registration to view at the Internet Archive)
- Reviewed: I believe I am currently exempt, as I don't yet have a DYK, but I have reviewed Milton (electoral district).
- Comment:
- Citations to the Amann article are to the paywalled published version, so page numbers will differ from the free SSRN version linked in the bibliography.
- ALT1 could be reserved for December 8, if possible under DYK rules.
- There is an excellent, high-res photograph of Goetz at Nuremberg available online from USC, but I don't know about the licensing. I would imagine it's fair use to include, but would want someone to review before uploading. In addition, the Library of Congress has this (much lower-res) image, but indicates there might be re-use restrictions. Anyone have any ideas here? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by AleatoryPonderings (talk). Self-nominated at 17:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
- see comments
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Hiya sorry you had to wait a bit for a review on this. It's an interesting article, thanks for the read. I don't see an image in the article (therefore NA at this stage in the checklist) so i suppose you didn't get further on copyright issues. I'm not an expert and on a quick look, I also don't know about https://sfi.usc.edu/sites/default/files/field/image/2018/05/cecelia_goetz.jpg since I don't see any attribution, you could try emailing them and asking. For example, if it is a work made by the US Federal Govt it should be useable. For https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/pnp/cph/3c10000/3c17000/3c17200/3c17252_150px.jpg i would say this could useable since it was taken in 1947 in Germany and if the maker is anonymous, copyright expired after 70 years. Of course a bigger version would be nice since to be used at DYK then image also needs to be in the article. The producer is ACME and their copyright info is here, to me this seems to say the pic can be uploaded to commons. You could be bold and do it or wait on another opinion. More info here for US and here for Germany. Mujinga (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I actually might email USC to ask about the first image—thanks for the suggestion! It seems almost certain that it was produced by someone in the US federal government, given the context, so I'd imagine that it's in the public domain. A moot point for the DYK, though, since I'm sure I won't be able to resolve that super quickly. The second image is soooo tiny … not sure if it's worth the effort. Thanks a ton for looking into this! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
For the hooks: ALT0 is ok but having "opening statement" twice isn't ideal, can you rephrase? Also the facts in the hook need to be cited by the source on the actual sentence in the text, so that would be on the sentence ending "December 8, 1947"; ALT1 is currently too long (i make it 205 characters) and unfortunately cannot be held til December 8 becuase of "not more than six weeks in advance" (Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Date_requests); ALT2 i can check source without logging in, "You're much to attractive" SIGH ... i think using "waiver of disability" is better than disability waiver since it emphasises the strangeness and apostrophes are also used in the source, also the source cited here needs to be the same as the one in the sentence in the article. ALT 2 is currently my favourite hook. Mujinga (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just added cites to the Berger book in the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- As for the hook, how about alt2a? Word gives me 156 characters, including ellipsis and spaces. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- ... that to serve as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, Cecelia Goetz had to receive a "waiver of disability" from Telford Taylor because she was a woman? she decided to make a direct appeal to Telford Taylor, the chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg. … 'Nevertheless, in order for me to be processed, Taylor had to sign a “waiver of disability” form—the disability being the fact that I was a woman.' (p. 184; source may require registration to view at the Internet Archive)
Also a small issue i have is that in the text it says "She served until the "mid-1990s"" and in the infobox it says 1978–1993, could you resolve that one way or the other? Hope that all makes sense, feel free to ask if it doesn't, the nom is awaiting your responses. Mujinga (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Let me look into this—one sec. Thanks for the spot! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oho! QPQ check gives zero DYKs, but from your talkpage you do have some credits, so perhaps by now you do need to do a QPQ ... therefore it's good you already did one :) Mujinga (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hiya great thanks for the responses, yes understood on the timescale for the pic but it's still worth doing for the article itself i guess. I'll look into the rest now. Mujinga (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- OK AleatoryPonderings so ALT2a is great, it just needs the citation used (Morello) to be put on the prior sentence in the article which discuss the waiver, I'm being pernickety because of the rule "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact". If you are happy to proceed with just ALT2a, that's fine with me, the other two could be rewritten as well. Mujinga (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Mujinga: I think this should do the trick? Must have gotten mixed up as to which sources I was using … And yes, I think alt2a is the best so far, so let's just stick with that :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
