Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/José Sarria/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:29, 2 October 2008 [1].

José Sarria edit

Nominator(s): Otto4711 (talk)
previous FAC (04:05, 23 August 2008)

I nominated this article several weeks ago because I believe it meets all of the standards for FA status. I did most of the writing, so forgive me if I sound immodest, but I believe the writing is strong, the coverage is comprehensive, it's verifiable, neutral and stable, well- and consistently-referenced and includes appropriately licensed images.

At the last FAC, one person supported promotion whole-heartedly. Another initially opposed and then supported conditionally and the condition was addressed. Others opposed on the basis of the length and detail of the lead. One person (who is apparently something of a problem child when it comes to the FA process) said it was missing citations and "not brilliant enough." SandyGeorgia expressed some concern about citations, finding it odd that a woman would go from being a member of the upper class in her home country to working as a maid in the US.

Following the close of the FAC, I left messages on the talk pages of each person who opposed the promotion, in hopes of getting additional feedback. With the exception of Sandy's, I got none. As I said in the first FAC, it's rather difficult to know what the reviewer is looking for in the way of additional sourcing or prose that isn't "brilliant enough" with no guidance as to what that reviewer believes needs to be sourced or where the prose needs to be brilliant-er. I believe I addressed the issue of the lead in the course of the first FAC and I believe I've addressed Sandy's concerns regarding attribution. I hope that if those same reviewers choose to participate again and still have concerns, they will try to help me improve the article by articulating them a little more clearly.

Apologies for this long-winded opening. Looking forward to going through this again and hope to see a different result! Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image request - Please link the licence for Image:JOSE1.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know what you mean by "link the licence". The image is tagged as having been released into the public domain. Otto4711 (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we know it has been released into the public domain? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to say where you obtained the image, so the PD claim can be confirmed. Give a url if it's from the web, or a publication reference (inc page if appropriate) if it's scanned from a hard publication. jimfbleak (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't obtain the image. It was uploaded by User:Njcraig who identifies himself as the creator. Otto4711 (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We still need to verify the information, so this will need to be resolved. On the one hand, it says "Photo provided to the public domain by the International Court System.", but on the other hand, Njcraig says he's releasing it. Which is it? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have left a message on Njcraig's talk page, asking him to contact OTRS regarding the license. Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Njcraig has gotten back to me, saying that he has "full permission" to use the photo. He also says that the photo was given to him by Panzi. I have also emailed an officer with the Imperial Court who's in charge of their Internet operations. What exactly are the steps that need to be taken to assure that this image is usable in the article? Talk to me like I'm six, because this image stuff confuses the hell out of me. Otto4711 (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they have a website with the image on it, they can put a note on the site giving the licence datails, or they can use the WP:OTRS system, whereby they email WP the licence Fasach Nua (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Njcraig has indicated he doesn't understand what he needs to do through the OTRS system and I don't understand it either. A step-by-step breakdown is needed explaining exactly what needs to be done. Otto4711 (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: On reading over the image issues again, I think that the images should be acceptable under fair use at the very least, and I see Otto is working to get further documentation that they are free. I don't believe these should hold up the nomination, so I have changed my !vote to support. Karanacs (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments by karanacs. I really enjoyed this article. The prose is very compelling and the topic is interesting. A few smallish things and then I'll be ready to support.
    • The order is a bit off for me. Sarria's military service is briefly mentioned in the early life section, and then it goes on to speak of events that happened afterwards. The next section backtracks several years to discuss the military service. I would move the last paragraph of early life to later in the article.
      I've relocated the last two paragraphs.
    • Is it known whether Sarria had a medical condition that left him so short?
    • Not that I know of.
    • I think this needs a source: "is much revered within the hierarchy of the Imperial Court System and is affectionately"
      The Imperial Court System's official site notes the nickname "Mama" and states "He is truly a living hero and role model for all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people or anyone who admires courage and optimism against daunting odds." Is that sufficient as a source?
      This is an instance where a self-published source is appropriate, since the sentence is essentially describing an internal point of view. Karanacs (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Added source.
    • Is there any information on what Sarria did between the late 1970s and the early 1990s?
      He was as far as I can discover just living in retirement and working with the Courts. Otto4711 (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the lead is still too detailed. For example, It's not necessary to point out in the lead that his parents were from an upper class background or from which country.

Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've pulled that detail and tinkered a bit with the wording. I don't know what else to pull out without affecting its utility as a summary. Otto4711 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I noticed that the lead begins with unlinked dates in month day year format, so I started changing your (previously linked, ISO format) accessdates to the same format - only to discover later in the article that there are quite of few instances of linked dates in the text itself, too. The cite templates are wonky—it seems most people don't know how to make them output unlinked accessdates—and I thought I was just tweaking things to follow your preference. Now I'm not sure what your preference is for date formats. If you could clarify whether your intent is linked dates (technically deprecated per MOS) or unlinked dates, I would be happy to finish 'fixing' things in either direction. Sorry for the confusion. Maralia (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, Sandy unlinked the dates in the lead during the last FAC, because of the odd situation of the double birthday. I was unaware that linked dates have been deprecated in MOS; I was doing the citations according to WP:CIT. Which I guess is my way of saying I don't care one way or the other. Otto4711 (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what I did; this date was neither linked nor delinked, it was ni fu ni fa. Maralia is asking what date format you want to use, since there are other inconsistencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I don't know what "ni fu ni fa" means. It looks to me like you removed the links around the dates but maybe I'm not understanding. I have no preference as to the date format so whatever is easiest for Maralia to do is fine with me. Otto4711 (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • hmmm, confused my languages I guess while reading about a hispanic and talking to someone I assumed spoke Spanish. Ni fu ni fa is neither one nor the other. You had one date linked, and one date unlinked, yet a solo year linked (which is never done) so it wasn't clear which way you were going with date linking but all needed fixing; I thought you would clear that up after my edit. At any rate, dates are now commonly delinked, so it would be fine to delink all dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and converted all the dates to unlinked, month day year format. Maralia (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


additional image comments

If the source for the main image is found, it may provide a rich vein of free images of the subject, and make these comments irrelevent Fasach Nua (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that Sarr1 doesn't significantly increase our understanding of the subject by serving to demonstrate the difference between the public persona Sarria presented in his daily life and the persona he adopted to run for office. WP:FOP is an essay. Otto4711 (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The roll of WP is not to demonstrate but to document, and the change is persona can be documented by GFDL text. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::*Are you really going to hang this on my choice of the word "demonstrate" instead of "document"? Otto4711 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, this was ill-considered and borderline uncivil. Otto4711 (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the plaque picture is probably not appropriate fair use - a free version could be created. I think that the image of Sarria in a suit should stay. Yes, the text can and does describe Sarria's transformation for his election race, but the image provides a much broader understanding to the reader. I think it is needed to contrast with the picture of Sarria in drag so that users understand just how dramatic the transformation was. Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that the Creative Commons license was sufficient to allow use of the plaque picture regardless of whether a free version can be created or not. Otto4711 (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photography may be of an appropriate licence, but the subject may be copyrighted, which is why I suggested looking into freedom of panorama, in order to get it under a completely free licence Fasach Nua (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of panorama doesn't work in the US, but since the only artistic element of the actual plaque is the portrait, apparently a simple reproduction of a photo, the copyright status of the original photo, plus the photo of the plaque, are the only issues. ie, the plaque is not a copyrightable 3D work of art. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the plaque picture is not appropriate fair use. It does not add significantly to readers' understanding, and a photo of the street sign for Jose Sarria Court would be free and serve the same purpose (anyone live in SF? you could also ask flickr users here and here to relicense the images). I also agree that the suit photo does add to readers' understanding. What a difference it surely made in his public image! Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not aimed at anyone in particular, but I have to say, I find image usage the single most frustrating thing about Wikipedia. I understand the necessity of and desire to use as much free content as possible, but the image use policies and guidelines are so damn complicated it's a wonder that any non-free images survive. Otto4711 (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To update the infobox image issue, I am in contact with several officials from the Courts and have apprised them of the situation. If they can't track down the copyright holder of that specific image then they will release another that they do hold the rights on into the public domain. Otto4711 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • Image:Sarrplaque.jpg - doesn't have a copyright tag (!!!) and appears to be freely replaceable/not minimal (NFCC#3A - the image of Sarria thereon is redundant and of inferior quality to two other images of him in the article; NFCC#1 - the prose thereon could be included as a quote). The purpose of "For illustration and critical commentary" is neither specific (NFCC#10C) nor detailed (WP:FURG)
    • Image:Sarr1.jpg - does not attribute a copyright holder (NFCC#10A); otherwise, I don't see a problem with its inclusion.
    • Image:JOSE1.jpg - needs a verifiable source (WP:IUP). The copyright tag is not supported. How can we confirm ICS has authority to license this image and has it to the public domain? This image does not appear to be on the ICS site and the site does not appear to have "free" content. It's all well and good that a free license is being sought, but we don't have it and are, therefore, making an entirely unsubstantiated PD claim. Эlcobbola talk 14:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly understand your concerns with these images.
  • I have contacted the copyright holder of a picture of the Sarria Ct. street sign, which sign if I'm understanding the above discussion is not copyrightable. He's agreed to release it so I just need for him to finish the process of releasing the image and I'll pull the plaque photo.
  • Sarr1 is campaign literature created by Sarria, so do I just need to put "copyright Jose Sarria 1961" on the image page?
  • I am in contact with several members of the Court, including the President. If they can't prove they hold copyright on JOSE1, they will select an image that they can prove copyright on and release it. Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above conversation is, well, bizarre. The plaque, of course, can be and is copyrighted. Per USC 17: "Copyright protection subsists ... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression". Freedom of Panorama does not exist in the United States, so I have no idea why it was even brought up. As a derivative work, we would need permission from the creator of the plaque, not just the photographer thereof.
  • Not the plaque. The street sign, being just a string of letters, is not copyrightable. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<moved extended discussion here> Эlcobbola talk 20:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The plaque text is copyrightable as text - the situation is no different showing a photo of it cast in metal to quoting it in the article text. The portrait I have discussed above. The plaque itself is not an "original work of authorship" - do you think the foundry wrote the inscription? Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone designed the plaque; it is absolutely an "original work of authorship". Publisher and author have copyrights to books; the printer and binder are irrelevant. The plaque's designer has copyrights. The foundry is irrelevant. Эlcobbola talk 17:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The design would fail on "original" as it is so plain; I agree other fancier plaques might have a design copyright. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if it were just text; the image element passes. The image is either based upon a photograph (in which case it is a derivative needing the release of the photographer) or the original work of the plaque designer - in either case, a work substantially above the threshold of originality. Эlcobbola talk 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made the point about the photo waaay above; I'm glad we agree about the plaque. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes no difference as I have removed it from the article and since it's now orphaned and I uploaded it I'll have it deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Sarrplaque.jpg has been replaced with Image:Sarriact.jpg which is licensed under creative commons and which contains no non-free content. Otto4711 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, but Image:Sarriact.jpg will need a verifiable source (i.e. a means for us to confirm Jones has indeed licensed it as CC-by-SA 3.0). This could be his contact information, an OTRS ticket, a Flickr link (if that's where it's from), etc.
  • If Sarria is the holder of the copyright for the campaign literature, that would work just fine.
  • Fully appreciated. We just can't promote a featured article using images with unsubstantiated claims. Эlcobbola talk 16:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I am still waiting for clarification from the Courts regarding either the copyright on the existing image or the release of another to which they hold the rights. The people I'm in contact with are meeting this week so may not be able to get back with me for a few days. If this is the only issue preventing promotion, can we either a) hold this open until they have a chance to respond or b) temporarily remove the image to allow promotion? Otto4711 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support as soon as a few small issues are resolved:
  1. All image issues, as described above. This is the deal-maker. Other issues are kinda trivial.
  2. There are two cites to "Miller" but no Miller in the refs.
  3. named refs needed for Gorman p. 150 & Bullough p. 377.
  4. The very first ref says glbtq, which I assume means Gay & Lesbian Times Quarterly. Is there some reason why this isn't spelled out? Before anyone jumps in and says it doesn't have to be, I'm just saying it would be nice if it were.
  5. The page numbering... can you look up the web page of whatever format you're using (APA or whatever) and let me know if "Gorman p. 14–6" is acceptable? I've see things like "146-8" before, where the first number has three digits, but with two digits it looks a little odd.
  • D'oh! I copied over the info from Miller from my work on Black Cat Bar but forgot to copy over the reference. Fixed. Not sure what you mean by "named refs". "glbtq" is the name of the site. It doesn't stand for gay and lesbian times quarterly. "glbtq" means gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning. It's not spelled out on the site so shouldn't be spelled out here. Otto4711 (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Named refs are for duplicate refs; they make them point to the same note, and put a b c d before the sequence of links.. the article already has several; the first example I see is <ref name = pettis> Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, OK. I think I have them all fixed but my eyes are sterting to blear when I look at the article. Otto4711 (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment This has no bearing on the FAC, but if you know anyone who can retake the pic of Image:Sarriact.jpg, that would be good. The sign that has Sarria's name is in the shadows. In the article, I can clearly see "Pond" but have to squint to see "Sarria". The angle is nice, with the trees and the flag and all.. but I dunno, if I can't read it, it isn't helpful. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/José_Sarria/archive2&oldid=1138464844"