Template:Did you know nominations/Sue Sarafian Jehl
- 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 PumpkinSky talk 22:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sue Sarafian Jehl
edit
- ... that Sue Sarafian Jehl (pictured) was one of the best known Women's Army Corps (WAC) personnel to serve the United States during World War II?
- Reviewed: Indian Salt Service
Created by Proudbolsahye (talk). Self nominated at 20:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC).
Just as a comment, reading the article. I find her list of medals awarded interesting, given that she was a woman and not in combat, but there are no details. I also think it was her service to Eisenhower that made her career interesting enough to be at DYK. Perhaps that could be in the hook? How about:
- Alt 1 ... that while serving in the WACs during WWII, Sue Sarafian Jehl (pictured) was assigned as an assistant to General Eisenhower, and remained with him when he became Army Chief of Staff?
- Alt 2 ... that Sue Sarafian Jehl (pictured) , who served as Dwight Eisenhower's personal assistant, said the famous general believed women made efficient officers?
- Of course, you would have to make sure those are actually stated as such in the article, and are sourced. Alt 2 source— Maile (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your honest commentary regarding Sarafian Jehl. I'm fine with ALT2. I changed the article in order to align it with ALT2. Let me know at the DYK page. Cheers! Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- (above-I'm copying the editor's reply from my talk page) What needs to happen now, since I suggested the alternate hooks, is that an uninvolved editor needs to do the actual review. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
A full review is needed of the article and the ALT hooks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I think something needs to be done about the photo, .Proudbolsahye. It looks to me like an official WWII era military service photo, which means the photo's date could not possibly be 2013. You uploaded it to Commons, but that doesn't make it your work. It just means you're the one who uploaded it. It's only your own work if you actually took the photo, in which case, there would be Metadata details at Commons. So, maybe you could work on the information about that photo. Commons needs to know where you got it, or they'll delete it. — Maile (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed the source. It is from the archives of the Jehl family. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, that's good. But since it's a family photo, I think "permission" comes into play. See Here. I'm not an expert on image copyright, but I know it won't be on the main page if there is a question. Let me post a question over at DYK talk, and see if someone can come over here on this template and answer. — Maile (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be an issue. I can always contact the family for image rights in any case. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, that's good. But since it's a family photo, I think "permission" comes into play. See Here. I'm not an expert on image copyright, but I know it won't be on the main page if there is a question. Let me post a question over at DYK talk, and see if someone can come over here on this template and answer. — Maile (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed the source. It is from the archives of the Jehl family. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I think something needs to be done about the photo, .Proudbolsahye. It looks to me like an official WWII era military service photo, which means the photo's date could not possibly be 2013. You uploaded it to Commons, but that doesn't make it your work. It just means you're the one who uploaded it. It's only your own work if you actually took the photo, in which case, there would be Metadata details at Commons. So, maybe you could work on the information about that photo. Commons needs to know where you got it, or they'll delete it. — Maile (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- (copied from Talk:DYK) Unless it can be proven that it was taken by a member of the US armed forces in an official capacity (Army Signal Corps, Navy, etc.), the family (Jehl's heirs) needs to release the rights to the photo through OTRS. That's assuming the photographer is unknown and the heirs have the right to release the image (could turn into a quagmire). It looks like a scan from a print source. It was not published prior to 1923 so PD rules do not apply. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am contacting the family today. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Image issue solved. OTRS permission acquired. Photo should be GTG. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am contacting the family today. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- (copied from Talk:DYK) Unless it can be proven that it was taken by a member of the US armed forces in an official capacity (Army Signal Corps, Navy, etc.), the family (Jehl's heirs) needs to release the rights to the photo through OTRS. That's assuming the photographer is unknown and the heirs have the right to release the image (could turn into a quagmire). It looks like a scan from a print source. It was not published prior to 1923 so PD rules do not apply. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks a lot better. Now you wait for a review of both the article and the hook. — Maile (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
