Template:Did you know nominations/Otto Herschmann

Otto Herschmann

 * ... that Otto Herschmann was the first person to win Olympic medals in more than one sport?
 * Reviewed: Zoebaida

5X expansion by Epeefleche (talk). Self nominated at 01:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC).


 * First, a trivial note for future reference: nominations go on the date expansion started (March 25 here), not the date it was completed (March 29). Now on to the actual article... Symbol question.svg The is supported by this link in the body of the article, but the source does not say "first". A second ref supports the same fact in the lead. The snippet of that source available online does not contain the info in question, so I need some clarification as to if that source says "first"... As a minor style, the lead does not require references (as the same info should be supported by refs in the body of the article).  Choosing to use refs in the lead is also acceptable, but the style should be consistant (all ref'ed or all unref'ed).

. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and comments. I've added two more refs -- one from the same author of the questioned ref that is offline (and was not accepted in good faith)_, and which I now do not have access to at the moment.  Question -- is there any chance that his photo is now because of its age eligible for use on the main page?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I did not reject the ref, I asked for a clarification (since it was not used in the body, I wasn't sure if it was an oversight or what). I'll take another look. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article 5X expansion has been verified, as has general compliance with policy. Fact is interesting an verified by an inline citation.  As a personal piece of advice, not a requirement for DYK posting, using more than two refs for one fact looks sloppy.  In general, only use as many as needed (usually 1) unless the fact is highly contentious, in which case 2 or 3 should be sufficient. As to the picture question, it is licensed under fair use, so can't be used.  A picture enters public domain X years (it varies) after publication (not X years after it was taken), so without knowing when it was originally published there is no guarantee it is in public domain.  The pic likely is in public domain, but isn't provable with the supplied info. If you can find a picture which was (provably) published before 1923 it is definitely in public domain; anything published before 1964 likely is as well, but needs to be verified that the copyright was not renewed. If you want further help on picture copyright issues, let me know.--ThaddeusB (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)