Template:Did you know nominations/George Backhouse Witts

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 StudiesWorld (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

George Backhouse Witts

(

)

... that George Backhouse Witts "read the Riot Act" on a hill in Gloucestershire?
- ALT1:... that ...?

Note: "reading the riot act" is a phrase still common in British English to mean a stern warning.
Reviewed: Yong Mei

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 19:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: All points check out, the hook is fine and ready to go. The licencing of the *image* is borderline. This is not my area, but I believe there ought to be something to say what reasonable inquiries have been made, as a photographer in 1906 could have been alive in 1986. No doubt someone taking this onwards will know the score better than I do, but it isn't the best ever image! (I have taken the liberty of editing out a capital T in "The Riot Act", which is in the local history society source relied on, but not the other. A really good reliable source, such as the Victoria County History, would definitely not use it in this context.) Moonraker (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I note your comments. I have removed the image from the nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

. Then I see no doubts on this one now. I was just looking at the image again. The first licence shouldn't be there, as the photographer isn't known. The second licence has three bullet points. The first doesn't apply, as the photograph has been used before, the second can't be claimed, because we just do not know if it was "made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) more than 70 years ago", and the third is no good, because it is not "an artistic work other than a photograph". So that licence should not be there either. Good call. Moonraker (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)