Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Doc Savage (magazine)/archive1

TFA blurb[edit]

Lester Dent, main writer

Doc Savage was an American pulp magazine, published from 1933 to 1949 by Street & Smith. The lead character was Clark Savage, a scientist and adventurer. Lester Dent wrote most of the novels that appeared in the magazine, often using an alias, and a few dozen more were ghost-written by writers hired either by Dent or by Street & Smith. Dent's work was full of inventive ideas, and ranged across multiple genres. Science fiction elements were common, but there were also detective novels, westerns, fantasies, and straightforward adventures. Dent worked with Henry Ralston and (until 1943) John Nanovic, two editors at Street & Smith, to plot most of the novels. Covers were painted by Walter Baumhofer until 1936, then by R. G. Harris and later Emery Clarke. The magazine was successful, reaching a circulation of 300,000, but was shut down when Street & Smith left the pulp magazine field completely in 1949. The novels were later reprinted as paperbacks. (Full article...)

Thoughts and edits are welcome. I went with "Science fiction elements" because it seemed to me, after reading the article, that there was more science fiction involved than just gadgets, but maybe I misunderstood. I also made a judgment call to just go with "alias" rather than explaining what kind of alias it was, but if anyone wants to put back the original link and language, that's fine. User:dying might have some comments later on. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, i am admittedly having trouble confirming that this photo is suitable for use on the main page. does findagrave.com have the appropriate copyright information? i am not that familiar with their web site, and could only determine that the photo was apparently uploaded to the site by a regular contributor who does not appear to have any personal affiliation with dent. i cannot tell if this means that the findagrave.com contributor is familiar enough with u.s. copyright law to generally avoid violating it. there is a tag on commons asserting that the photo was published in the u.s. between 1928 and 1977 without notice of copyright, but i am unable to personally verify this.

i am not sure if there are any suitable replacement images, but perhaps this photo can be used instead. it's rather tangential to the blurb subject, though, so i am not sure if it is appropriate. it is possible that a screenshot from a trailer for the film doc savage: the man of bronze, such as this one of ron ely as doc savage, can be used if the trailer was published without a copyright notice, as trailers are often considered separate works published before the films themselves, and i believe film studios often did not copyright their trailers at the time. if you think such an image would be suitable, i will try to confirm this. in any case, i have already edited the blurb so that it is of appropriate length whether or not a photo is used.

i recognize that you have previously asked me to direct questions about images to wp:errors, but i often first raise them with either a tfa coordinator or the editor who added the image to the blurb, to avoid bothering the wp:errors regulars needlessly, and you happen to be both in this case. dying (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed, in this case. I'm out of practice, but we might get an objection to an actor in a 1975 film. I'm not a fan of the stockroom photo (because it's not clear what I'm supposed to be noticing from the image), but I wouldn't object if someone else wants it. I generally prefer to have some image over no image. Gog, when you get back from your holiday: the image above comes from findagrave.com. I know that Milhist deals with findagrave constantly, so maybe you know: is that license acceptable? If not, do you have a suggestion? - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dying, apart from Milhist, I'm not sure where to ask about our general experience with findagrave.com. - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, yeah, i'm not sure what the next step should be either. wp:errors is an option, though as Schwede66 has previously suggested the use of wt:tfa to solicit opinions on possibly problematic captions, it may also be an appropriate forum for this possibly problematic image. i would be fine with whatever you decide to do.

by the way, i actually had the same concerns that you had about the two images i proposed, and have no issues if they are not used. interestingly, as a photo of someone cosplaying the main character of a franchise has previously been used when the franchise was featured at tfa, i had figured that an image of someone who is effectively a professional cosplayer would also be acceptable, so was admittedly more worried about whether someone would bring up copyright concerns at wp:errors without realizing that the image was taken from a trailer that appears to be in the public domain, than whether someone would find the image irrelevant. dying (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll raise the issue at WP:ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you guys invited the people at WP:MCQ to weigh in? That's a noticeboard that specializes in questions just of this nature. --Jayron 32 11:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Jayron, I'll ask. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe and Nikkimaria: are frequent FAC media reviewers. They might have ideas on determining the copyright concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mike (the FAC nominator) has suggested at WP:ERRORS that we run it without an image. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can consider it a free image without, at the very minimum, knowing of a publication within the specified date range without a copyright notice. (t · c) buidhe 14:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]