Talk:Molly Clutton-Brock

Article title

...should be Molly Clutton-Brock (as cited in the article itself and in the linked authority records); a redirect is likely needed (I'm not good at creating those). I have used the existing title in the listas --FeanorStar7 (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

My error. Thanks for your help as always Victuallers (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Molly Clutton-Brock would treat the spines of African babies until she was deported by the government of Rhodesia?Source:"that musculoskeletal defects like kyphosis and scoliosis could be corrected" and "He and his wife were deported to Britain"

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/George T. McDonald

Created/expanded by Victuallers (talk). Self-nominated at 11:39, 6 February 2021 (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: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Well written and cited, an interesting life No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Victuallers: hi, sorry to be a downer but I've removed this from Queue 1 for the time being as I think the image (and the one it's cropped from) may not actually be public domain. They are tagged with a {{PD-Zimbabwe}} template, and marked as "author unknown", but in fact the same image is found in The Times and is attributed to a Sally Roschnik. If the author is not unknown, the template suggests we need to wait until 70 years after the death of the photographer. I have no idea if Ms Roschnik is dead or not, but since it hasn't even been 70 years since the image's creation, I don't think this criterion can be met. Also, as an aside, the template says at the bottom "A Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996". That also doesn't seem to be met, so wondering if this woule be eligible for Commons anyway, if it isn't in the US public domain? I'll raise a deletion request at Commons shortly, unless there's something I'm missing. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The photographer should be credited but the license says 50 years if it is a photo. This I think is OK Victuallers (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Victuallers: as we discussed on Commons, it seems I was wrong about the anonymous vs credited issue, but if the wording of the template is correct, there's still the US copyright issue. We're fairly sure this image was taken after 1946, so probably not valid under that. I've seen that you've now uploaded it locally on en-wiki as a fair use image, which seems fine, but fair use images aren't allowed to be used on the main page so I think we may still have to run this hook without the image. Correct me if I'm wrong though, I seem to have messed this one up once already!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

She was thrown out of Rhodesia ~50 years ago so its a fair assumption that the photo is >50 years old. So it is free to use in Zimbabwe. I don't understand the 1996 caveat, but if you do, then it will have to run without an image - which is a pity. She didn't get to Africa until after 1946. Don't worry about mistakes, its amazing that en:wiki emerges despite being created by semi-co-operating humans. Victuallers (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your attentiveness and cordiality - I've reapproved the page without the image. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI, as I've posted on the Commons discussion thread, I think the image might still be in the public domain because it was published before 1964, and copyright doesn't appear to have been renewed. Edge3 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)