Template:Did you know nominations/Texas A&M–Commerce Lions softball

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 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Texas A&M–Commerce Lions softball

(

)

2015 A&M–Commerce Lions softball team

... that when the Texas A&M–Commerce Lions softball team (pictured) was established in 2015, it made A&M–Commerce the last school in the Lone Star Conference to sponsor the sport?

ALT1:~~... that the Texas A&M–Commerce Lions softball team (pictured) is coached by 2013 National Fastpitch Coaches Association Coach of the Year Richie Bruister?~~
ALT2:~~... that the Texas A&M–Commerce Lions softball team (pictured) compiled an overall record of 29–24 in its inaugural season in 2015?~~
Reviewed: The Ocean Cleanup

Moved to mainspace by Michael Barera (talk). Self-nominated at 01:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC).

This is my first attempt at a DYK review, so take it with a grain of salt. Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, cites source with inline citations, and the text is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. Image is used in the article and shows up well at small size. Hooks are short enough, interesting, accurate and cited, and neutral. The photos are said to be licensed under cc-by-2.0, confirmed by the FlickreviewR robot. However, on Flicker, they are actually tagged as "All Rights Reserved"! (Did A&M-Commerce change their license after the import?) All references are from the Texas A&M University–Commerce athletics website. Isn't this a primary source, which we should avoid? Oefe (talk 22:28, 4 January 2016‎ (UTC)

@Oefe: if you have concerns, you should notify the nominator by copying the template above the edit window, just under the row of colored icons, and placing it on his talk page. I pinged the nominator for you. Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Oefe: Thank you for your review. To address your questions:

1) Yes, the images (including the one used in the proposed hook and in the article) were freely licensed under the cc-by-2.0 before I ported them to Commons, and then were subsequently (and from my perspective, unexpectedly) changed to "all rights reserved" on Flickr. But, thankfully from our perspective, CC licenses are irrevocable and there is no copyright issue with the photo in question.

2) You are right about Wikipedia's preference for third-party sources, but this team is actually so new (it began its first season of play in spring 2015) that most of the materials available about it are published by the university. There are certainly some Lone Star Conference sources that I could add, though, such as records and standings ([1] and [2]).

Michael Barera (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Michael Barera: You're welcome.

1) So we should be OK legally, even if the copyright owner might not be happy about that. (Maybe they would agree to change the license back (just for those two images) to remove the ambiguity? A kind of "donation" to WP?)

2) This might be a good idea. A Google News search reveals some references in regional newspapers and radio stations. Maybe they contain something useful. And of course, we can always add more citations later.

As I said, this is my first attempt, so probably somebody more experienced should give the final OK. Oefe (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Done I've now added third-party references from the Lone Star Conference as well as the local radio station (KETR) and student newspaper (The East Texan). I believe this will address your concerns. Also, as I stated before, because CC licenses are irrevocable, there is nothing that we have to do regarding the images. Thanks so much for your review, and all the best! Michael Barera (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (As this is my first attempt at a review, it would be good if a more experienced reviewer double-checks the nomination. Thanks). Oefe (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

After reading through the comments on this page and also assessing against the criteria myself, I can confirm this passes DYK criteria. I would advise using the original blurb, so I have striked out ALT1 and ALT2. I am very impressed that you spotted the license problem with the image on your first review! Jolly Ω Janner 06:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)