- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Marian Cripps, Baroness Parmoor
- ... that the twin sister of the anti-war activist Lady Parmoor (pictured) was imprisoned for publishing a leaflet uncensored by the government?
Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self nom at 13:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: that the 70-year-old Dowager Baroness Parmoor (pictured) researched nuclear fission in order to argue against the use of nuclear weapons? Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- ALT2: that during the First World War, Marian Ellis (pictured) supported men who refused to perform military service by giving money to their families? Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure which of the above would be most hooky. Pick your favourite! Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Length and date ok. The text is supported primarily by the ODNB and appears accurate. There are some instances were it skirts perilously close to close paraphrasing, without quite trespassing; a second main source would be useful, if one can be obtained. The main hook and Alt2 are definitely supported. Alt1, which I think is the most hooky, is also the most dodgy; I'm not sure 'in order to argue against the use of nuclear weapon' is the only meaning of 'in order to speak with some authority about the uses and dangers of atomic energy' from ODNB. Are there any other sources here that could clarify, or can a rephrase be found? (And if this is used, it should be weapons.)
- Re the image, the portraitist died over 70 years ago, which should be usable in most countries. I'm not, however, sure whether 'published before 1923' applies to portraits of this nature, which are not strictly 'published' if only exhibited in a private house. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. You are right about a second source and I will try to find it. As for Alt1, I imagine it is correct because she was trying to warn the public about the Korean War. If it is indeed dodgy, I suppose the other two hooks are good enough, but I'll see whether I can find a source that explicitly mentions nuclear weapons. I am not sure about the portrait, though. Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Your addition definitely helps to flesh out the article, and in the light of it, I think Alt1 is likely to be the correct interpretation, though I'm still a little chary of using it as the hook.
- As to the portrait, I think it wasn't published before 1923, as it appears to have been in a private collection until at least 1941 per ; in the absence of evidence of a public exhibition before 1923, I think the current licence might be the wrong one. We might need an expert to state whether 'artist died over 70 years ago' alone is adequate for main-page image use, as there are one or two countries with more stringent rules. Sorry not to be more helpful here! Espresso Addict (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with EA here. To be free on the English Wikipedia a work needs to, at the very least, be free in the US. This painting is not free in the US as its copyright would have been extended by the URAA in 1996. I've nominated the painting for deletion on Commons, and sadly we cannot use it here. You could keep it on the English Wikipedia as a fair use image, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you a lot for informing me about the status of the image. It's a pity it cannot be used alongside the hook, but it would be much worse to present it as a free image when it's not. Surtsicna (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, better to be safe than sorry. Extra tick for clarity, based on above review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)