Template:Did you know nominations/Military Working Dog Teams National Monument


 * 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 Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Military Working Dog Teams National Monument

 * ... that the Military Working Dog Teams National Monument was unveiled on October 28, 2013 and is dedicated to U.S. war dogs and their handlers?


 * ALT1: ... that the public can visit the Military Working Dog Teams National Monument on Lackland Air Force Base, near San Antonio, Texas?

Created by Akjayintx (talk). Self-nominated at 08:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg New enough (moved to mainspace 4/19) and long enough. Created by a brand new editor, so no QPQ is required. Hook is short enough, interesting enough and supported by an in-line citation to a reliable source.  However, the reference list includes bare urls that need to be improved before this can appear on the main page. Also, the photograph has an appropriate license, but it is unclear whether the license covers the photograph, the sculpture depicted, or both.  Note that the sculptor is Paula Slater and the photo upload is from a user named PBSlater28. Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to make adjustments to the article, however please be patient as I'm quite new to this. Which bare URLs are you referring to that need editing, and what in particular is wrong with them? Also, the photo in the DYK was produced by the U.S. Air Force therefore no license is required.  The sculptures depicted in the monument would be the property of the US government, so is a license required for the actual sculptures?  The photo in the article by PBSlater28 is her own work and released.  Apologies if I sound confused.  Akjayintx (talk)  07:21, 27 April 2015  (UTC)
 * The last four sources listed in the "References" section consist of bare urls. These need to be placed into correct citation format.  The other references are in good shape, so this should not be too difficult.  As for the image, the Air Force may own the statue, but that may or may not include the artist's copyright.  Do you know for certain that the image uploader is the artist?  Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been over a month since the nominator's most recent edit, which is the "I'm happy to make adjustments" comment above. I have just pinged the nominator's talk page. Given that none of the issues noted by Cbl62 have been addressed, unless some action is taken in the next week, the nomination will be marked for closure at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As a follow-up to the above: I have taken it upon myself to incorporate one of the four sources into the article as inline citation support (Fox); the Yahoo was already being used as an inline source, and I deleted the other two sources as not necessary for the article. The issue now is the inclusion of the photo of the sculpture. As noted, the artist is Paula Slater, the image was uploaded to Commons by PBSlater28, and therefore may well be by the artist herself. Crisco, can you take a look and let us know whether this seems sufficient permission for the image, or if more will be needed? If the latter, does that affect the entire nomination, or just the use of the image in it? Please let us know; if it will prevent the entire nomination, we might as well close it, since the nominator hasn't edited in over six weeks. (I haven't checked the artist's website to see whether there's any indication of licensing there.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * By my reading of the situation, this was completed for the John Burnman Memorial Foundation (which appears to be a private organization). As such, there is no automatic release of the sculpture into the public domain. Since the US has no FOP for sculptures, all of the images should be deleted. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg I just checked Slater's website, and it says there, "The artist holds the copyright on these works. Please do not reproduce these images without prior consent of the artist." Even though it would appear that she, or someone with an account named to look as if it was her, uploaded the one image (included in this nomination) with the CC 4.0 license, we can't definitively trust that one image, and the rest, per Chris, are not allowed. Under the circumstances, we cannot approve this nomination for DYK, so I'm marking it for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If we were to nix all of the images (or keep one as fair use in the article) that would work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Offering up a fusion ALT2 hook that's punchier and that I am hopeful will stir interest in somebody completing this review. - Dravecky (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT2:... that the Military Working Dog Teams National Monument at Lackland Air Force Base is dedicated to U.S. war dogs and their handlers?


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Chris Woodrich has removed the infringing images from the article and this nomination, leaving a fair use one of the monument in the article. With a punchier ALT2, I have struck the original hooks; the reviewer should do a full new review, since a number of things have been changed or fixed since the original review was made, and also check for close paraphrasing and neutrality, which was not addressed in the original review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Approved as to alt 2. The article is long enough, new enough (was at time of nom, anyway), and reasonably well written with in-line citations.  The alt 2 hook is short enough, interesting, and supported by in-line citation to a reliable source. No QPQ required. Spot-checking doesn't turn up issues with close paraphrasing or copyvio. This is now good to go. Cbl62 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)