Template:Did you know nominations/Heures de Charles d'Angoulême
- 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 HalfGig talk 01:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Heures de Charles d'Angoulême[edit]
![AVE MARIA GRATIA PLE[NA]](/wiki/File:Illuminated_human_alphabet.jpg)
AVE MARIA GRATIA PLE[NA]
- ... that the book of hours Heures de Charles d'Angoulême contains a miniature of the beginning of the Ave Maria in historiated letters (pictured)?
- Reviewed: Simona Stašová
- Comment: we had this hook before, this time the book should be the right one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Created by LouisAlain (talk), Martinevans123 (talk), and Hillbillyholiday (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 11:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC).
- So what's that "PLE[na)" all about at the end of the caption? Do we need some kind of translation/ explanation? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, you have a link Ave Maria, where it says "Áve María, gratia plena, / Dominus tecum. / Benedícta tu in mulieribus, / et benedíctus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. ..." The letters go only to "PLE" but ple is no word, therefore I added to plena. I saw it but others may have to see it spelled out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough and has been very well translated from an article in the French Wikipedia. However, the "Description" section has no references at all. This is not like the "plot" section of a book where the book acts as its own source, but contains a lot of opinion and detail which needs attribution. Other than this, the image is in the public domain, the article is neutral, and I doubt it raises any copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. I'm guessing that the Matthews source (free to read at JSTOR) is probably the key. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, Martinevans123, Gerda, et al., I thought the French Wikipedia text was "too good to be true" and did some checking. Unfortunately, the description section in the French Wikipedia article (fr:Heures de Charles d'Angoulême) is word-for-word copied from this catalog (beginning on page 2 of the PDF). The catalogue is from the firm M. Moleiro who specialise in facsimile editions of illuminated books. As the copyright of a text extends to its translation (a derivative work), I'm afraid that whole description section in the English WP article is a copyright violation and will need to be re-written or removed.:( Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it looks as if the description section will have to go, and without it the article is too short for DYK. Better would be if someone paraphrased the section to remove the copyright violations. The section could then be cited to the catalogue. Is anyone willing to volunteer? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have difficulty distinguishing "a series of facts" from "close paraphrasing" when I'm working in one single language, let alone when there is translation from another language involved. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Voceditenore: I have removed the copyvio Description section and replaced it with a summary. I hope you are happy with it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, that was above and beyond the call of duty. :) It seems now to be reasonably OK from a copyvio point of view, although it might be a good idea to make the source explicit in the actual text, i.e. "According to..." since some of that material is expressing opinions rather than incontrovertible facts. Voceditenore (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's great, makes you one of the contributors signed late , --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- I quite agree. Your diligent help here, in support of DYK, is much appreciated. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, that was above and beyond the call of duty. :) It seems now to be reasonably OK from a copyvio point of view, although it might be a good idea to make the source explicit in the actual text, i.e. "According to..." since some of that material is expressing opinions rather than incontrovertible facts. Voceditenore (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Voceditenore: I have removed the copyvio Description section and replaced it with a summary. I hope you are happy with it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have difficulty distinguishing "a series of facts" from "close paraphrasing" when I'm working in one single language, let alone when there is translation from another language involved. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it looks as if the description section will have to go, and without it the article is too short for DYK. Better would be if someone paraphrased the section to remove the copyright violations. The section could then be cited to the catalogue. Is anyone willing to volunteer? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, Martinevans123, Gerda, et al., I thought the French Wikipedia text was "too good to be true" and did some checking. Unfortunately, the description section in the French Wikipedia article (fr:Heures de Charles d'Angoulême) is word-for-word copied from this catalog (beginning on page 2 of the PDF). The catalogue is from the firm M. Moleiro who specialise in facsimile editions of illuminated books. As the copyright of a text extends to its translation (a derivative work), I'm afraid that whole description section in the English WP article is a copyright violation and will need to be re-written or removed.:( Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. I'm guessing that the Matthews source (free to read at JSTOR) is probably the key. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
New reviewer needed now that the original reviewer has been added as a contributor to the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- QPQ, Length, Date, Cite, and Copyvio all check. Image is PD-Old and should be usable. Should be good to go. Mifter Public (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)