Talk:European Union/GA3

GA review

Since I did a review on Institutions of the European Union I decided that in league with that I would also review this article. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask them. Regards, Daimanta 18:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been a previous assesment of GA status, I will confirm to the older GA status-standard. These were the reasons the previous article failed:

1. Way too much of the article is unreferenced
2. The "Enlargement" section needs work. The list of countries that may join the European Union is written in prose, and is necessary, but paragraphs should flow. It seems almost as if random facts are just thrown into paragraphs. Goals of joining and things going for the country followed by issues preventing the country from joining
3. Religion section is specific to Europe, but its relation to the Europian Union is not clear in the article.
4. Many parts were confusing and didn't really elaborate. History section should probably elaborate sligtly more. It goes from the 1950's to the 2000's. Something had to have happened in between.

If it passes these criteria and the other GA criteria, I will make this article GA. Regards, Daimanta 20:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rometreaty.jpg requires a fair use rationale. Daimanta 11:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked every picture in the article. Some are missing a fair use rationale, one picture wil leven be deleted because there is no source of authorship present. If this doesn't improve, I WILL fail the article. Daimanta 16:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found four instances of dubious sourcing Image:Rometreaty.jpg Image:Josesocrates2006.jpg Image:20050708-173.jpg (I think we can do without this one if there is no alternative) and this Image:European Union Population Density.png (we can replace this one with the aerial photo at night if it comes down to it). Can people more versed in the images rules figure this out?? Thanks Arnoutf 17:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did warn on Rome Treaty ages ago but did anyone listen? It is treated on Wikipedia as if it is PD. I don't see the problem with JS though, or has that just been fixed? I also agree we should dump the G8 image, we can replace it, and the last one - yes we can change to the sat image (but the deletion info seems a tad off, or again has that just been fixed). On these issues, just give us a few hours to sort it before failing - we can usualy do this quite fast. - J Logan ^t: 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am no expert on image copyright, and those four had a copyright justification that seemed a bit weird compared to the others. The last (the map) has an exclamation mark on the image page, so I think there is something wrong with it; at least, someone has flagged up a potential problem. Arnoutf 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, the PD box just didn't have the author listed there so it is automaticly listed as non-sourced even though it is specified in the above box. Why it also has the second PD box I don't know. Socrates looks safe though, what were the images you were talking about Daimanta? - J Logan ^t: 18:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped Ssolbergj, who is the original uploader, a message on his talk page asking him to have a look at it. He is fairly much involved in this article, so I am pretty sure he will act. I think it can easily be solved this way. Arnoutf 18:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images that were possibly dubious were listed by Arnoutf earlier on in this thread. SOme have been fixed but there are still images experiencing problems like Image:20050708-173.jpg and

Image:Rometreaty.jpg. Regards, Daimanta 18:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We dropped that image from the article; as we agree the copyight was not ok. You were talking about 'some images', so I ran through all images trying to identify the others. I think JLogans question was whether we caught all those you had seen. Arnoutf 18:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:EUCoJ.jpg contains pretty much no information. This needs to be done better than it is now. Image:Euro_banknotes.png is very tricky, be sure that all conditions are met. It needs a fair use rationale. Regards, Daimanta 20:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a line to the uploader of the Court of Justice uploader (Ssolbergj again), if it does not work out, we can remove that one as it is not crucial.

The image page says it was taken by Ssolbergj who stas he releases it into the public domain. It is a picture of the Court of Justics's building in a section on the article on the EU's legal system. What more do you want? Caveat lector 11:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ssolbergj fixed the copyright info on the image page last night (after the earlier talk here, but before Caveat Lectors remark). I think it is fine now. Arnoutf 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the banknotes. WP non-free images state we can use: "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject.". I think this would qualify. Also the clear showing of "SPECIMEN" in the design conforms to the license requirement (by the EU central bank ie copyright holder) that states: "its use is permitted "as long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes"" (the image conforms to the demands for this put by the EU central bank as explained on the page of the image itself). The function of the image is to identify the Euro currency to the reader (caption being "The Euro is accepted by 13 of 25 countries"). So I think we should be able to use this images on this page in the current context. But I agree, the interpretation is not straightfoward. PS Daimanta I added a few colons (:) inside your image wikilinks (prior to the name) so they no longer show on page, this to prevent this talk page being cluttered with image, hope you don't mind Arnoutf 20:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's acceptable. The thing with the images was a mistake, I accidentally added it like an image in stead of a link. Regards, Daimanta 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2007/05/bicycle_wobbles.html (43) is a blog. I suggest it ought to be removed because of non-reliability. Daimanta 22:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source "Goldirova, Renata (11 July 2007). Brussels' first-ever move into sport area set to spark controversy. EU Observer. Retrieved on 13 July 2007." is locked. Remove and if neccesairy, find another cite on the topic. Daimanta 22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for "^ a b Rettman, Andrew (9 March 2007). EU sticks out neck in global climate change battle. EU Observer. Retrieved on 9 March 2007." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daimanta (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that ideally all sources should be available to any editor/reader without any blockage, there are situations where this is not feasible. The issue of locked sources has been discussed in citing sources. The majority viewpoint was that paid access is verifiable (as anyone willing to pay can access) and is as such not different from printed sources, or scientific journals, that also require access to a library holding a subscription. Arnoutf 07:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Policy is that they sould be replaced if possible when they become unavailable. But the text is still there if you pay (and it is on a minor matter) and in these cases I don't think there is an alternative. In some cases it is possible to view them using Google's caché and in most cases I have my own archive of cited but now locked news articles to make sure stuff isn't attributed to them that isn't included. - J Logan ^t: 08:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but this on your account, not mine. If I can't check it, you will carry the responsibility for the link's value. Daimanta 10:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Many scientific journals use the same provision: The value of reference list value is the responsibility of the author not of the reviewers or editorial team. Arnoutf 10:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am inclined to pass this article. It is properly sourced and it elaborates on specific subjects in detailed WP entries. I am waiting for comments for the next 5 hours. After that, I will pass this article. Regards, Daimanta 12:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh the suspense! :D - J Logan ^t: 23:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the article has passed. The hard work has paid off. Congrats. Regards, Daimanta 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, also for the very thorough review you undertook. Arnoutf 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your time and work Daimanta! - J Logan ^t: 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as per request I will answer what chance this article has of getting to FA. FA is pretty tricky to reach since even the most minor defect can create strong opposition to promotion. Nevertheless, I think that the substance and sourcing of this article make it FA-friendly, that is, the things that prevent this article from becoming FA are probably fixable if you take some time to work on it. I hope that answers the question. Regards, Daimanta 21:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the op. Very helpful. And thanks again for your work (not easy going though an article like this!) - J Logan ^t: 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]