Template:Did you know nominations/Graham Reynolds (art historian)


 * 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) 21:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Graham Reynolds (art historian)

 * ... that art historian Graham Reynolds wrote the catalogue raisonné of the works of John Constable?


 * Reviewed: Watch Me Do

Created by Philafrenzy (talk). Self-nominated at 23:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Good to go in all areas but 2: length, newness, refs, hook, npov etc, are ok. I have made a few minor edits, mostly adding links. If it was me I'd lose the later one-line sections, adding the material higher up, but whatever. My only concerns are: a) minor - it is the only catalogue raisonné, and likely to remain so for a long time, as these things do, and b) The book-cover from the 1980s surely should not be on Commons, and anyway is not okay for the main page I think? The uploader claimed the image was "created" in 1837.  Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will look at the other things John. The rationale for the image is that is is an old painting with some words of text overlaid and the addition of simple text is not sufficient to create a new work eligible for copyright protection, hence the PD Old and PD Ineligible licenses. If they had done a lot more graphic design with the cover, that might not be true. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed first from the hook. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * QPQ done. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we have precedent for that? It seems legally pretty doubtful to me, I must say. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's based on threshold of originality among other things. You can take a picture of the Mona Lisa and slap some text on and you don't have a copyrightable image just because you have done so, but if you exercise a high degree of originality in what you add it might just rise to the level of being copyrightable. Only a court ruling will determine it definitively for any particular work. But it really doesn't matter as they won't use that pic anyway, so I can delete it from the nom if that is preventing you ticking it. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Might be easiest - you could just use an original. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pic deleted. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg adding the tickmark since the only two requests from the original review have both been done. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)