Template:Did you know nominations/Ladies Musical Club

Ladies Musical Club

Ladies Musical Club members posing for the club's 30th anniversary, Seattle, 1921
Ladies Musical Club members posing for the club's 30th anniversary, Seattle, 1921

Created by Jmabel (talk). Self-nominated at 02:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ladies Musical Club; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Will review this one. SusunW (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
New enough - created 6 March, nom 7 March; long enough - 3553 char; cited; neutral; no apparent copyvios - Earwig hits on names and quotes; QPQ done. Hooks are verified in article immediately following statement and source verifies information. Under maximum limit. Issues: Photo has a tag that says info needs to be verified. States "taken March 21, 1921" copyright relies on published date, not taken date. Was it published? If not, it is ineligible for free release until 120 years after creation or life of the author + 70 years, if the creator died before 1953. He died in 1950[1]. Thus, it seems to be compliant, but may have the wrong US tag. If it wasn't published the US tag should be {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Can't determine the correct tag at this stage. Agree hook 0 is most interesting but can we lose redundant "Seattle" and possibly replace perform in Seattle with perform in the city? SusunW (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@SusunW: "in the city" is fine with me, though I think "in that city" would be better.
As for copyright status: I can't be certain, but Frank Nowell was a professional photographer (among other things, the main photographer for the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition, and presumably would at least have made multiple copies for club members (which would have constituted publication under U.S. copyright law at that time), though of course I can't prove it. He probably would never have registered a copyright (he didn't usually on group portraits for organizations). I'm not the original uploader, but speaking as a Commons administrator, even with Commons "precautionary principle" this is the sort of thing where we consider it so unlikely that there is a copyright issue that we would consider this acceptable. I haven't been in enough recent discussions on en-wiki on this sort of thing to know if the standards here may now be even tighter than Commons'. Jmabel | Talk 18:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to tick it Jmabel and let the promoter make the final call on wording. I concur in that city is fine. I also know that based on my analysis above, the photograph is compliant, I am just not sure about the tags we should use. As you are a commons admin, I bow to your authority and appreciate your discussion on the tagging. By the way, interesting article. I enjoyed reading it. SusunW (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)