Talk:New York Academy of Medicine

Potential Copyright Issue
The latest main content revision on May 13, 2011 seems an almost copy from http://www.nyam.org/about-us/history/. Further details will be updated in Copyright problems/2011 August 12 -- SchreyP (messages) 13:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nyam.org/about-us/history/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lede image
There are currently two choices for lede image:

Is there a preferences here? BMK (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Image1 is my preference, primarily because it shows the entire building. Yes, it was taken in the winter and not the spring, yes, Image 2 has a much prettier blue sky, yes, Image 2's resolution is better, but for the purposes of the article's lede image the resolution is unimportant, as it's going to be displayed at a fraction of its full size. The purpose of a lede image is not to be pretty per se, it's to give the reader an idea about what the subject looks like, and a picture which shows more of the building (which clearly has not changed in any visible way in the year and a half between images, so the fact that Image 2 is more recent is irrelevant) does a better job of that. BMK (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I prefer image 2. It is newer; newer images should almost always replace older images when showing places. It also has a higher resolution that allows one to view more details, including signs, stonework, and small Latin phrases around the windows that are far less legible in the other photograph. As well, image 2 has a PD license versus image 1's more complicated and restrictive licensing. The only detriment is that small portions of the sides of the building are lost, however those sides contain no more detail than the portions that are shown that are next to them. So that small extra detail is really unnecessary, and is a smaller detriment than the higher image quality is a benefit. Also, as a photographer, image 2 is more visually appealing, taken in the summertime and not losing the top corner of the building. I am the photographer of image 2 and the above-commenting editor is the photographer of image 1.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  22:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how the licensing of the two images is relevant in any way. Both are usable on Wikipedia as marked. Again, the question here is not which is the better, prettier, more pleasing photograph, but which one, at the size it will be displayed at, does a better job of representing the building for the reader of the article. That's really the sole criteria.  Those who want to see more images can hit the link for the Commons category. BMK (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Freer images area always preferred. Higher resolution images are always preferred. Newer images are always preferred. These are simply understood and recognized on Wikipedia. As well, Wikipedia is attempting to resemble an official formally-published encyclopedia, with quality content (text and images). A lower resolution grey-sky photo from a few years ago shows poorly to the quality of the article. Image 1 is a general improvement to the aesthetic and quality of this page.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  23:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The condition you forgot to mention is all things being equal. Here, they are not, since one image shows the entire buildig and the other doesn't. BMK (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No. But regardless I don't think that's at all a big deal/worth considering, seeing as those sides contain no more or different detail than the portions that are shown that are right next to them. So I still believe image 1's benefits outweigh that one detriment.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  23:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this detail difference (see image on the right) is pretty significant for a decision for the only image on the article.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  23:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of ocurse, no one's going to actually see that resolution in the article. BMK (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It's far more likely that someone's going to click the image to view it larger and click it again to view it even larger, as that works, than it is for someone to scroll to the bottom of the page and click that little box that says "Wikimedia Commons has media related to..." which is very unclear to any non-Wikipedian or any layman. If that box said 'Click here for more images', then I might at least give some merit to your argument.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  00:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)




 * A disagreement between two much-respected photo editors? And I'm dumb enough to throw in an opinion? Well, yes. Picture 1, at shown size, better tells me what the building is and especially the grand entrance. Not so much because it's the whole building, as because of the uniform illumination on a rainy day and the glass skyscraper behind loses its prominence. Fuzz in the details destroys the inscription, yes, but we don't see that detail anyway when we're just looking at the Academy's page. Detail considerations deserve thought but in this use, gestalt questions are entirely decisive for me over questions of detail. Incidentally the newer, sharper picture would be improved (for this use) by cropping the top and bottom, though not enough to change my mind. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought about cropping, but neglecteded to mention it. See Image 2A on the right. BMK (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

What would you all think about this draft? It shows more detail than either Image 1 or Image 2 could on their own. How about it?-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  19:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, in an attempt to make everybody happy, I went out and took some more shots today, which was a beautiful spring day here in New York City. Thus I offer Image 3, on the left.



Here are the salient points:
 * It's newer than Image 2, having been taken today.
 * It was, obviously, taken in the springtime like Image 2, not in the winter like Image 1, and has a blue sky, if not as incredibly blue as Image 2
 * It shows the entire building, except for a very small portion at the east end, which is hidden by the trees (which is one reason winter pictures are often superior in showing a building)
 * Resolution: comparing the portions of each photograph which show the actual building, Image 3 is much better than Image 1, but a tiny bit worse than Image 2 (I had the figures but lost them when Firefox crashed while I was originally writing this). Thus if you blow up the image to see the fine detail, it won't be quite as good as Image 2, but it will be significantly better than Image 1.  (If Mj would like to make that comparison visually explicit, I'd be interested in seeing it.)
 * It's not my usual habit, but I have done it before, on occasion: to put Mj's mind at ease, I have released Image 3 into the public domain.



Regarding MJ's suggestion of a second image in the article, I'm all for that, but I don't see much value in showing another image of the facade, just from another angle. The building is eclectic, but it isn't all that interesting. I would, instead, add an image of the building's entrance, as you can see in this draft. BMK (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, I was also considering visiting again, although I had tried to get the full building the first time with limited success and didn't think I'd do any better a second time. I'm also glad you changed the license, and I like the updated entranceway photo; feel free to add both of those to the article without my objection.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  23:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I added image 3 to that detail comparison shot. It's not ideal (perhaps consider buying a DSLR?) but it's still good, I have very little ground to complain here any more. Thanks.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  23:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll inherit my 15 y.o. son's DSLR when he moves on to something better -- in fact, that's how my whole picture taking thing started, when I got his first hand-me-down. :)Thanks for the go ahead to add image 3 and the entrance picture, I'll do that. If anyone objects, please make it known here and we can discuss it.  Best, BMK (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI I also took shots of the ground floor window grates, with the carved lettering in Latin over them, which I'll be cleaning up and may upload one or two to Commons eventually, but I don't think they're interesting enough architecturally to add to the article. See what you think if and when I get around to uploading them. BMK (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Resources

 * https://vimeo.com/66271527 - selfpub, cc license
 * https://nyamcenterforhistory.org/2016/10/12/ninety-years-and-counting/ selfpub, reliable, good refs
 * http://lostpastremembered.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-new-york-academy-of-medicine.html independent, good summary
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387323/?page=2 Wakefield bio
 * https://www.loc.gov/resource/cph.3c10054/ free Wakefield image

More to come. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 20:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on New York Academy of Medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219083423/http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/awards.html to http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/awards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219083423/http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/awards.html to http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/awards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219083423/http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/awards.html to http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/awards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219083423/http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/awards.html to http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/awards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219083423/http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/awards.html to http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/awards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219083423/http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/awards.html to http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/awards.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"Edward Clark Streeter" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Edward Clark Streeter. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 31 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jessamyn (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)