Template:Did you know nominations/Soo Yeon Lee
- 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) 12:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Soo Yeon Lee, SPiN[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
Soo Yeon Lee at video shoot
... that table tennis player and model Soo Yeon Lee (pictured) has coached numerous celebrities and is a brand ambassador for SPiN, a chain of table tennis bars?part 1 (in Korean) part 2
- Reviewed: PRR MP70, Vijay Kumar Kapahi
Created by IronGargoyle (talk). Self-nominated at 04:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC).
This review is for both articles in bold above, Soo Yeon Lee and SPiN. Both articles pass copyvio checks (e.g. Soo Yeon Lee, SPiN), both have appropriate inline citations, and the hook content is interesting. Two QPQ reviews were performed.
A problem is that per WP:DYKRULES, both articles are not new enough, with Soo Yeon Lee being created on 4 May 2016 and SPiN being created on 8 May 2016, and recent edits to not surpass a 5x expansion for either article within a 7-day period prior to the time of this DYK nomination. Prior to additional recent work on both articles, Soo Yeon Lee, 18 May 2017 was at 2733 B versus the present state of the article link at 2881 B, and SPiN, 18 May 2017 was at 843 B versus the present state of the article link at 1733 B.North America1000 02:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)- @Northamerica1000: -- I thought the timer started when the articles were moved to mainspace (point d of rule 1). Admittedly, they sat as userspace drafts for a while, but they were moved to mainspace just yesterday. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Good to go. I overlooked that both were moved from userspace to main namespace on 28 May 2017 (diff, diff). As such, both qualify as new articles. North America1000 02:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, I came by to promote this, but the part about being a brand ambassador for SPiN sounds too much like advertising for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's just a neutral description of the relationship that she has with the company, and I'm not sure how to link the articles together otherwise. They seem like a natural fit to go together. How about this? I think it makes it shorter, hookier, and it removes the company name from being visible on the main page. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- ALT 1: ... that table tennis player and model Soo Yeon Lee (pictured) has coached numerous celebrities and is a brand ambassador for a chain of table tennis bars?
- @IronGargoyle: Yes, thanks, that works much better. Before I re-tick this, I just noticed that the image license was approved and then withdrawn from Vimeo. As I'm not familiar with licensing requirements, is the image still eligible to be featured on the main page? Yoninah (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Thank you, I think that helps the hook a lot! Regarding your second question: Yes, I am certain that the image is freely licenced (and thus eligible for the main page). CC-by-3.0 cannot be revoked (there are nearly 30,000 images tagged by commons:Template:Flickr-change-of-license which would not be on Commons if it could be). When I uploaded the image (taken as a screenshot from the author's video) the work was licenced as CC-by-3.0. Vimeo allows videos to be tagged as freely licenced. As you can see on the Commons image description page, I have linked to the Wayback Machine which verifies the video was uploaded under that licence (it's a small icon below the video player). I hope this goes above and beyond the Commons policy that the licence be verified by a trusted user. It was clear to me when I uploaded the pictures that Eric Longden was the creator of the video they were derived from, and so had every right to licence the video as CC-by-3.0 (i.e., the works are not
FlickrVimeo-washed (see Licence laundering)). Does this clarify things? IronGargoyle (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Thank you, I think that helps the hook a lot! Regarding your second question: Yes, I am certain that the image is freely licenced (and thus eligible for the main page). CC-by-3.0 cannot be revoked (there are nearly 30,000 images tagged by commons:Template:Flickr-change-of-license which would not be on Commons if it could be). When I uploaded the image (taken as a screenshot from the author's video) the work was licenced as CC-by-3.0. Vimeo allows videos to be tagged as freely licenced. As you can see on the Commons image description page, I have linked to the Wayback Machine which verifies the video was uploaded under that licence (it's a small icon below the video player). I hope this goes above and beyond the Commons policy that the licence be verified by a trusted user. It was clear to me when I uploaded the pictures that Eric Longden was the creator of the video they were derived from, and so had every right to licence the video as CC-by-3.0 (i.e., the works are not
