Talk:Baron Munchausen/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 03:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article, which I can say from the outset looks excellent and certainly in no danger of quick failing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment:

1. Well-written:

1. 1. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
   2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:

1. 1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
   3. it contains no original research.
2. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
3. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
4. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
5. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
   1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

• Images: I am not entirely convinced by the copyright rationale for the image "File:Cliff_Hall_and_Jack_Pearl_1952.JPG". It seems weird to me that pre-1978s images should be in the public domain simply because they don't have a copyright sign on them. I think it ought to be removed from the article. It also doesn't really illustrate anything about the topic of the article. The other images are fine as far as I can tell.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • American copyright law is definitely weird, but that is indeed the way it works. Literally thousands of images have fallen into public domain by that path, and many can be found on Wikipedia—including as illustrations for Featured Articles, such as the infobox image for Bette Davis. So, no need to worry about this image from a copyright standpoint.

As for whether it illustrates the topic—well, I'd say it does. The image accompanies text about a very popular and successful radio adaptation of the Baron Munchausen stories; Hall and Pearl were the original stars of that radio production. A nice public-domain image of the two of them together seems like the perfect visual accompaniment to the text, so I can't see any reason not to use it. If you feel strongly the other way, though, I'd be happy to discuss the matter further.

And thanks so much for the GA review!--Lemuellio (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will trust you on that one, since I am not a copyright lawye and have little interest in becoming one. I usually don't like to pass articles without somehow making myself feel that the article was somehow improved by the review process, but I don't think there is much I can do here. I will pass it shortly.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)