Talk:Edson Chagas/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 22:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The phrase Chagas is best known for in the lead is somewhat worrisome; everything else is fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The entirety of the career-based content is from 2013-2015. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] Chagas appears to currently be displaying his (very well-received) work from 2013-2015; I've found a bunch of references such as [1] but nothing that needs to be added to the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images at all. Are there any public domain images of this person or any of his artwork? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] As per discussion, there are no images that can reasonably be added. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.

@Power~enwiki, thanks! The 2013 Biennial made his career as far as the sourcing goes. I made a reasonable attempt at offline and non-English sources and these were the sources that I found. I contacted galleries and several photographers in February for photos but came back empty-handed. But yeah, it's hard to get open permissions for the medium that is one's livelihood. czar 22:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but I would expect that a photo of him (as opposed to his work) could meet fair-use standards. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. It's very reasonable that none of his work would be licensed in a way to allow inclusion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP doesn't allow fair use photos of living people per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1 (that it's physically possible for someone to track down the individual and take a photo), more explicitly in second paragraph of Wikipedia:Non-free content lede). A fair use image of his work would be reasonable if such a work was described in the prose and the lack of its visualization would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. Or, as is the case, the reader can just follow the link to his portfolio. czar 23:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll do a check for other (more recent) references as well as another read-through before approving this, but I don't see any other changes that are necessary right now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do expect this article to evolve considerably over time, but don't see any issues with it now. (the lead section could possibly be split into two paragraphs but I'm not sure that's better). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]