Talk:1972 Bean Station bus-truck collision/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll take this review. At first glance, there are some issues with image licensing. I see no evidence that File:11wbeanstationbuscrash.jpg and File:11W Greyhound crash.jpg are actually licensed under the CC BY-SA licenses claimed on Commons. They should be replaced by public domain images from the NTSB report, and/or one image moved to enwiki as fair use. Additionally, File:Bean Station crash scene NTSB illustration.jpeg should be on Commons at full resolution under a PD-US-NTSB license. Once those issues are addressed, I'll proceed with the rest of the review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Pi.1415926535
- Issues are addressed.
- Thanks, AppalachianCentrist (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- @AppalachianCentrist For File:11wbeanstationbuscrash.jpg, there needs to be explicit evidence that a) the photo was actually published before 1977 and b) that it was published without a copyright notice. Most newspapers did have copyright notices by 1972, so unless there is clear evidence otherwise (i.e, a scan of the full newspaper showing there was no copyright notice), the default assumption is that the photo is still copyrighted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- @AppalachianCentrist Reminder about this - I'd like to see this issue fixed in the next few days, or otherwise end the review for now with no prejudice towards later renomination. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @AppalachianCentrist For File:11wbeanstationbuscrash.jpg, there needs to be explicit evidence that a) the photo was actually published before 1977 and b) that it was published without a copyright notice. Most newspapers did have copyright notices by 1972, so unless there is clear evidence otherwise (i.e, a scan of the full newspaper showing there was no copyright notice), the default assumption is that the photo is still copyrighted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's been over two weeks since the nominator was active on this article, and the image licensing issue is still unresolved. I am failing the nomination as criteria 6a has not been met. If this is fixed, I encourage renomination; the article otherwise looks close to GA quality. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)