Template:Did you know nominations/Nahem Shoa

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Template:Did you know nominations
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 Allen3 talk 16:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Nahem Shoa

Nahem Shoa standing beside Giant Head of Ben
Nahem Shoa standing beside Giant Head of Ben
  • ... that the artist Nahem Shoa (pictured) increased the number of portraits of Black and mixed-race British people on display in British art museums?
  • ALT1:... that some of the British painter Nahem Shoa's portraits (pictured) were painted at up to 15 times life size?
  • Reviewed: Country Joe and the Fish
  • Comment: OTRS is pending in place for the image.

Created by

talk
) at 17:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC).

  • The image is nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons. It's claimed that the copyright status of the painting is not definite. Mhhossein (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That phrasing is somewhat disingenuous,
    talk
    08:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I would not call it "disingenuous" assuming
good faith, because there's no contradiction between the nomination and that claim. No one denied the license being granted, rather it was due to an OTRS pending template pasted there. How would you guarantee that both emails are checked? There's only one addressed ticket at the moment. By the way, I withdrew the nomination because an admin said there was no problem as far as he saw. Mhhossein (talk
) 10:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
What made it disingenuous was the implication that someone else made the claim and you were just reporting it here. (As for
talk
14:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Good faith takes a different meaning when it comes to copyright issues. Even now, I think that I did the best thing possible by nominating the file. Unfortunately, the files are suspicious until a volunteer from OTRS team addresses them. I withdrew only due to what the admin said. Please consider that, the nomination was not based on an "assumption" rather a problem existing in the description page of the file. Btw, who made the claim? Mhhossein (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Full review needed now that image issues have been settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

ALT-1 passes H, L, N, P - no Q needed. Primary hook doesn't pass H, not interesting (unquantified "increased" is too vague to be of interest). ALT-1 clear for queue. LavaBaron (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry to be late with it (I've only had 3 DYKs I nominated reach the front page so far, but I've made multiple nominations since and they can't all count as #4 and 5, so I semi-arbitrarily picked the outstanding nominations of mine that were reviewed earliest) but this nomination does now have a QPQ that needs to be double-checked,
    talk
    15:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
No prob. Per nom request, review is rescinded in full. LavaBaron (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. However, there is an "original research" tag in the second paragraph under "Other works" that should be taken care of; perhaps the whole sentence should be deleted? ALT1 is certainly the better hook, especially next to the image. ALT1 hook ref verified and cited inline. Image is freely-licensed. QPQ done. Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi
talk
20:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, definitely. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)