Talk:Alan Moore (war artist)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mitch Ames (talk · contribs) 13:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The article includes File:Holocaust horror, blind man walking through the Belsen concentration camp.jpg, which is copyright but does not appear to have an appropriate fair use rationale (according to its Licensing section). This may be cause for immediate failure. Could someone more knowledgeable on the copyright rules please clarify this.

Disclosure: I am a significant contributor to the article - although not including that image - so won't otherwise be reviewing the article for GA. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The image has been removed until further information is brought forward. I created the article so I definitely won't be reviewing it. But I can vouch for the image, it's fair use because it has been published by the Australian War Memorial. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 23:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The image has been added again. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 02:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And still has no fair use rationale listed. It looks like it should be straightforward to justify, but it needs to be done. "Because it has been published by..." is not a fair use rationale, and in any case the rationale needs to be included in the image metadata, not here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a problematic review, since it was opened by someone ineligible to review the article, and the standard expectation for GAN is that the person who opens the review will be the one to close it. I'm going to put a request for a second opinion along with a note that the hope is for a new reviewer altogether. If that doesn't work within a couple of weeks, I'll put the nomination back into the pool of articles needing a reviewer. I suggest that, in the interim, the image file itself be given a proper fair use rationale, since the article nomination cannot pass without the file having one. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for being problematic. I was aware that I could not review the article (being a significant contributor) - my intent was to "comment" rather than "review". I did not think it appropriate to simply ignore what I believed to be a major non-compliance with the article. I'm quite happy to withdraw/strikeout my "review" if it helps.

Just in case something similar happens again in future, what would be the appropriate action for me to have taken in this case? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Mitch Ames, I don't think you were problematic—indeed, you were trying to help. (No need to strike anything; it's useful information for the eventual reviewer.) In future, I think that if you see shortcomings in an article you've worked on at the point that it's nominated by someone else, the best course is to post to the article's talk page with your concerns, since it's important that they be addressed. Then, when the GA review opens, you can draw the reviewer's attention to it on the review page—reviewers should check the talk page, but not all of them do—so said reviewer is aware of the issues you've noted. An example of this can be found on Talk:Hiranandani Gardens, Mumbai, where the comment was posted on November 2, about a week after the article was nominated but over a week before the review began on November 10. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've been problematic. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 06:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment

Because the review was opened by a contributor, and no one was willing to take it over despite a second opinion request that ran for a month, the nomination was returned to the GAN pool on January 1 to wait for a reviewer. This page is closed; at some point, a new reviewer will open the /GA2 page to start a fresh review. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)