- 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) 05:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Dolly Rudeman
edit- ... that in the 1920s, Dolly Rudeman was one of the most prolific designers of movie posters and programs for the Dutch cinema, and the only woman at the time working in the field? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_Rudeman#cite_note-Groot2007-4
Created by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) and Drmies (talk). Nominated by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) at 13:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC).
Looks fine for now, a bit of hook tweaking might be good (in the field at the time, movie to film, etc), otherwise it's new and long enough and I can take the offline/foreign-lang sources in good faith. Waiting for QPQ. Cheers! Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: Done QPQ. Nice one! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Mmhm, on a more serious note I think some work still needs to be done. You have uncited quotations from newspapers (second-to-last para) and again, assuming good faith, but I hope the citation for the last para covers all the content therein (since that's the ONLY citation). Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Kingoflettuce, I referenced that one claim and will go over the rest. Yes, that last paragraph is sourced entirely to her bio. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- I edited and reorganized the article, and added an infobox. I also added some clarification-needed tags. The article is neutrally written, and there is no close paraphrasing from the online English sources. The hook is referenced to a foreign-language source and is AGF and cited inline. However, the article is an orphan; please link it to some other Wikipedia pages so it won't be tagged. It would be nice to add an image of Rudeman or one of her posters. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Glad you didn't find anything against DYK rule, anyway. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 08:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment: Added mentions of Dolly Rudeman to two articles, so no longer an orphan. Would any posters be off copyright? Might depend on whether copyright was held by the movie studio, or by Rudeman. If the latter, Danish law provides for life + 70 years, which would be 2050. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've got a reprint of her Potemkin: what if the photo was deliberately low quality? That is, clearly a photo of the thing rather than a replica of it? — fortunavelut luna 04:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for linking the article to other pages. However, the "citation needed" tags are still there for her birthplace and death place. The [Dutch Wikipedia page] lists her full birth and death dates, and birthplace, but this is not sourced. Is anything happening with an image? Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoninah and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: The tags for the birth/death places aren't "citation needed tags," they're "where" tags (i.e., saying the information is missing, rather than there but unsourced). Unless I'm missing something that shouldn't be an issue? The one issue seems to be with the unsourced quotation about Charlie Chaplin.
- Re: copyright, the low-res photograph you suggest would fall under the fair use category if the original is still under copyright, which can't go on the front page. There are a number of considerations: who had the copyrights, Rudeman or the movie companies; what the US copyright status would be, especially if never registered here; which law matters (US/Netherlands) to put something on the front page of Wikipedia; and probably others. I really don't know the answers to any of those questions, but you could try asking here: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
No movement on a picture, so I'm approving this without one. Rudeman's place of birth is not in the article, but that's not a deal-breaker. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've got a reprint of her Potemkin: what if the photo was deliberately low quality? That is, clearly a photo of the thing rather than a replica of it? — fortunavelut luna 04:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment: Added mentions of Dolly Rudeman to two articles, so no longer an orphan. Would any posters be off copyright? Might depend on whether copyright was held by the movie studio, or by Rudeman. If the latter, Danish law provides for life + 70 years, which would be 2050. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Kingoflettuce, I referenced that one claim and will go over the rest. Yes, that last paragraph is sourced entirely to her bio. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Mmhm, on a more serious note I think some work still needs to be done. You have uncited quotations from newspapers (second-to-last para) and again, assuming good faith, but I hope the citation for the last para covers all the content therein (since that's the ONLY citation). Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
