Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maria Callas/archive1
- 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 17:04, 10 June 2007.
Maria Callas edit
It's a full, well-written article, with sufficient images and proper subheads and references. Plus, she was La Divina!!--WoodElf 05:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per these problems:
- Image issues:
- The infobox image indicates that the image is being used alongside critical commentary. In the place it is being used in this article, it is instead being used for mere identification purposes (that is what it is in the infobox for, n'est pas?) and thus is uncovered by Fair Use.
- The family portrait image is using a deprecated liscence tag; also it may be uncovered by fair use as the author of a picture taken in 1925 may have lived past 1937 and thus the image would NOT be public domain; we don't have enough information about the image to make any judgement on its proper use in the article.
- The image of the book cover, Image:Unkown Callas.jpg, isn't being used to illustrate the book in question and thus cannot be used here. It isn't covered by fair use.
- The image Image:IMG 2559.JPG claims that its copyright holder has relinquished rights to it; but I see no source and no evidence that such relinquishing of rights has taken place...
I am going to stop there. There may be other issues, but it is clear that an article that misuses copyright images to the level that this one does should not be upheld as a featured article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I moved the image out of infobox and into main section. I removed the book cover image and changed the info tag on IMG 2559 image to copyright, fair-use. I dont know about the family photo, but hopefully it's not a major issue.--WoodElf 12:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is a major issues. For the family portrait, we have NO SOURCE for it? Where did it originally come from? Who took the picture? In what work was it published before it came to Wikipedia? We should not feature an article that makes questionable use of copyrighted images. Plus, the tag on the image page is STILL the wrong tag. WRT the Olympia Airlines picture (IMG 2559...), the tag on the article clearly states "The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion." We have NO information on where this image came from. Also, if this is a promotional picture for Olympia Airlines, it may not be appropriate to use it in an article that doesn't even mention them? The picture is NOT being used to illustrate the copyright holder, and probably does not meet Fair Use requirements. Also, now that you have moved the infobox picture, I would recommend moving the image "Image:Callas knowing look.jpg" to the infobox; it is the one image of Callas in the whole article that appears to be covered under Wikipedia's image policy.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Idle comment: it could be worse. I recently deleted 8 images that were being used in this article that had no fair use rationales at all, let alone valid ones. Apart from these problems - fair use images, if we have to use them (do we?) simply have to relate to the article more closely than this. They can't be used purely for decoration. Moreschi Talk 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreschi, did you alert the original uploaders as to the issues before you deleted the images? If not, can we put these up for deletion review? It seems unfair not to give a chance to the uploaders to provide appropriate sourcing. Robert K S 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but I imagine (just checked, he did) MER-C did when he initially tagged them. He thinks of everything, be most out of character to slip up here. Moreschi Talk 09:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there are any free-use images of Callas. Does anyone have any free-use pics we could use? --WoodElf 06:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you checked Flickr or other places? You may very well find public domain or CC or GFDL images there. This article is properly using at least 2 images now under Fair Use; I am not sure it needs more. Images, when they can be freely used or fairly used, are a nice thing, but no images are better than misused ones, IMHO. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there are any free-use images of Callas. Does anyone have any free-use pics we could use? --WoodElf 06:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but I imagine (just checked, he did) MER-C did when he initially tagged them. He thinks of everything, be most out of character to slip up here. Moreschi Talk 09:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreschi, did you alert the original uploaders as to the issues before you deleted the images? If not, can we put these up for deletion review? It seems unfair not to give a chance to the uploaders to provide appropriate sourcing. Robert K S 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Idle comment: it could be worse. I recently deleted 8 images that were being used in this article that had no fair use rationales at all, let alone valid ones. Apart from these problems - fair use images, if we have to use them (do we?) simply have to relate to the article more closely than this. They can't be used purely for decoration. Moreschi Talk 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is a major issues. For the family portrait, we have NO SOURCE for it? Where did it originally come from? Who took the picture? In what work was it published before it came to Wikipedia? We should not feature an article that makes questionable use of copyrighted images. Plus, the tag on the image page is STILL the wrong tag. WRT the Olympia Airlines picture (IMG 2559...), the tag on the article clearly states "The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion." We have NO information on where this image came from. Also, if this is a promotional picture for Olympia Airlines, it may not be appropriate to use it in an article that doesn't even mention them? The picture is NOT being used to illustrate the copyright holder, and probably does not meet Fair Use requirements. Also, now that you have moved the infobox picture, I would recommend moving the image "Image:Callas knowing look.jpg" to the infobox; it is the one image of Callas in the whole article that appears to be covered under Wikipedia's image policy.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I moved the image out of infobox and into main section. I removed the book cover image and changed the info tag on IMG 2559 image to copyright, fair-use. I dont know about the family photo, but hopefully it's not a major issue.--WoodElf 12:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's recommended that when you cite a statement to a book, you cite the specific page number. LuciferMorgan 15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but this is impossible when a book is referenced numerous times in an article, without extensively lengthening the references section with redundant citations to the same book, repeatedly, simply to reference multiple pages. I say this as someone who contributed none of the citations but who pressured for such citations to be included when the article was undergoing significant changes several months ago. Robert K S 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. Look at Alcibiades.--68.90.163.170 12:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On that page I see about three pages of duplicate citations. In particular I see Kagan, The Peloponnesian War on numerous lines. So, what point were you trying to prove? That it is possible and cumbersome, which is what I said? Two of the books in the Callas article have over 26 citations to them each. I will oppose efforts to clutter up the article with 50+ extra duplicate lines. The references section is already extensive enough. Robert K S 12:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, since books are revised all the time, page numbers will not neccessarily be the same in all editions. WoodElf 04:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. Look at Alcibiades.--68.90.163.170 12:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but this is impossible when a book is referenced numerous times in an article, without extensively lengthening the references section with redundant citations to the same book, repeatedly, simply to reference multiple pages. I say this as someone who contributed none of the citations but who pressured for such citations to be included when the article was undergoing significant changes several months ago. Robert K S 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.I agree with LuciferMorgan. Without the citation of specific page numbers, it makes it much more difficult for someone to verify a fact or quickly locate the fact in the book if they choose to read more detail. Having a long reference section is not a bad thing--it means you are properly and completely citing your work. Karanacs 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let me be another voice noting that articles should reference page numbers when citing a book. If the ISBN number is cited, then the page numbers will be to a specific edition and will be unambiguous. Even if the book predates ISBN, giving full publication information (publisher, location, date, edition) will ensure that the correct edition is used to check facts. If you want to see an FA that does this well, see Cricket World Cup. It should also be noted that Wikipedia is a scholarly endeavour. Academic rigour should not take a back seat to convenience or asthetics, especially not in an article we put forward as a Featured Article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.I agree with LuciferMorgan. Without the citation of specific page numbers, it makes it much more difficult for someone to verify a fact or quickly locate the fact in the book if they choose to read more detail. Having a long reference section is not a bad thing--it means you are properly and completely citing your work. Karanacs 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, and I feel bad doing this for only one reason since the rest of what I read looked very good... but, I think we have come to the point where all featured articles should have links to page numbers from print sources. Raul, if you find this unreasonable feel free to discount my opinion. gren グレン 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.