Template:Did you know nominations/Pharnavaz I of Iberia

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) 22:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Pharnavaz I of Iberia

(

)

... that according to Georgian annals, Pharnavaz I was the founder of the Kingdom of Iberia?

Comment: The editor who expanded this to GA is under a topic ban, and thus cannot claim credit for this article until after the ban is lifted.

Improved to Good Article status by Jaqeli (talk). Nominated by 3family6 (talk) at 23:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC).

The picture is quite possibly a copyvio. Note that on its source page the uploader claims authorship, which is very unlikely. Dahn (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that they claim it is public domain, I don't see where they claim authorship. They do cite Pharnavaz as the author, which is incorrect. The date of authorship is claimed to be c. 1900, which if the author died around that time would mean that the pic is old enough. I'll see what I can dig up on the pic's origins.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Commons details contain a link to a website, but I cannot tell where THAT website got the image from. I left a message on Jaqeli's talk page, but right now that editor is blocked - because of their work on this GA nom (yeah, it's complicated) - so they might not be able to reply until the block expires (which will be the end of this week).--¿3family6 _contribs 15:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jaqeli says that the author is unknown, and they will try to investigate the age of the photo.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Picture has been nominated for deletion on Commons. This nomination will be in limbo until the Commons one has been closed; alternatively, the image can be removed from this nomination, which would allow it to be reviewed without waiting for the picture issue to be resolved. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the image and the reference to it in the hook.--¿3family6 _contribs 05:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Full review of the nomination needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yikes what a bunch of problems. OK, then, let's get the donkey work done, at least. New enough (GA 17 June, nom 19 June), and long enough. No QPQ necessary. The hook is sourced to offline citation #46, which I take AGF. The article text is objective, neutral, and fully referenced. The first paragraph in the Life section is awkwardly-worded; as if it were written by an editor whose first language was not English. However the meaning remains clear so I shall not count it as an issue. The two thumbnail images in the article are free. Spot checks revealed no sources of copyvio or close paraphrasing. Issues: (1) "Antiochus" is a disambig link. (2) The pdf file in the bibliography is a deadlink. (3) The large image in the article has an SD template and IMO the template is valid because the artistic style of the image belongs to the second half of the 20th century, therefore the image is too new and cannot be out of copyright - so it has no valid licence. We shall have to wait for the outcome of the SD template discussion before passing this nom (unless someone removes the image from the article). Summary: When issues 1 and 2 are resolved, and when we know the outcome of issue 3, then this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk)

1) The dab link in this case is valid. The article says "the generic name Antiochus" that the line of Selucid kings went by. So the name is not a specific person, but more a title. 2) The pdf is in a foreign language that I am not at all familiar with, so I can't find an alternative link. It is a scholarly article, so there are print or electronic forms of access, but they might require subscription. Suffice to say, the article is real, even though the link no longer works. 3) Like you said, let's wait and see.

Thank you Storye book for the review.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, 3family6. As I understand it, issues 1 and 2 are not a requirement for DYK, and we've covered it, which is enough for me. So all that remains, as you say, is to await the outcome of issue 3. --Storye book (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Storye book, the image was deleted. Are there any other outstanding issues?--¿3family6 _contribs 23:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As Storye book is incommunicado. I'm passing this on the basis of her previous review and the fact that the issues she raised have been cleared up. Hook seems to be supported by an offline source. Belle (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)