- 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 Yoninah (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The Mellow Pad
- Reviewed: This is my 3rd DYK. I'll try to do QPQ, but right now I don't have time.
Created by GeneralPoxter (talk). Self-nominated at 03:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
|
|
|
Overall: 
@GeneralPoxter: Very interesting and engaging read and hook. The article flows beautifully; it is very well sourced, paid WSJ article accepted in good faith after checking all of the other sources. Only QPQ review remains to be done. Ping me once you do it. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Elie plus: This is only my 3rd DYK though. I'm still familiarizing myself with the DYK review process, and I'm not sure if I'm ready to review hooks yet. Also, the citation for the hook itself doesn't seem to be paywalled, so I don't understand why it needs to be accepted in good faith. GeneralPoxter (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- @GeneralPoxter: QPQ is not required. Your source is fine, and is indeed quite readable. Hook is sourced to source 1, not 2 (the WSJ, which is paywalled but I came here because I have access). The WSJ is more explicit though: "Mr. Davis didn't exactly improvise, however; he worked on "The Mellow Pad" on-and-off for about six years, until 1951." Consider adding words to this effect to the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Thanks, should I mention that in the hook as well? GeneralPoxter (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- No need. Hook is fine as it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Reopening the nomination after the discussion at WT:DYK#Prep 4 image that seems to conclude that the image is not, in fact, free by DYK rules. A work of art that wasn't completed until 1951 should, by copyright rules, still be under copyright for more than another quarter century despite the museum's claim (As noted, the Library of Congress considers Davis's work to be copyrighted.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I confirm the above review, and would agree with BlueMoonset that the DYK should go ahead without the image. The author died in 1964, so the painting may not be out of copyright. Although the image remains unchallenged on Commons, because Brooklyn Museum reckons the painting has "no known copyright restrictions", I believe the safest way forward for us would be to promote the hook to DYK without the image. Thank you for this article, GeneralPorter - we need these articles about jazz-paintings. Storye book (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! I am largely inexperienced in copyright policy on Wikipedia, but I think going ahead with this DYK without the image is the best solution. The Brooklyn Museum's website does state that even there are no known copyright restrictions, it cannot guarantee that use of this image would not violate any third-party restrictions. GeneralPoxter (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the image should be nominated for deletion at Commons and not included in the article either. Yoninah (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, I removed the image from the article, but I'm going to let someone more expert in this copyright issue nominate the image for deletion on Wikimedia. GeneralPoxter (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have nominated the image for deletion from Commons; we'll let the experts there decide. It may be that there is a fair use argument for including the image in the article itself, but the image would need to be uploaded on English Wikipedia with a valid Fair Use template. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Re-confirming green tick, for hook without image. A clear version of the image is already linked in the External links section of the article anyway. Storye book (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@GeneralPoxter: Very interesting and engaging read and hook. The article flows beautifully; it is very well sourced, paid WSJ article accepted in good faith after checking all of the other sources. Only QPQ review remains to be done. Ping me once you do it. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
