Talk:Inner Search/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chilicave (talk · contribs) 23:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article over the course of this week.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): just a few small things I addressed in points 1-3 in comments section b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): lead complies with MOS:VISUAL; layout of information looks good. One small question about an image in point 4 of the comments section It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: good balance of information presented; netural tone acheived; good! It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

1. per MOS:REPEATLINK, you could remove the red links from the captions underneath the three images. "Operations center" can be unlinked since it's pretty straightforward in the lead paragraph.

Comment – I removed all but one of the red links

2. Description and history

- combine He received US$225,000 as his commission with the second sentence to look like "California artist Mark di Suvero was first commissioned US$225,000 for the project in October 1979..." Flows better.

- "Inner Search was dedicated at 11:30 a.m. August 27, 1980."

^^Something just feels missing about this sentence when not including the site's name.

3. Reception

- "From August 19 to 27, 1980..." The wording is a little awkward. I would just cut out specifics and state "In August 1980..."

Comment – I removed the specific dates per your request

4. The image in the INFOBOX that shows the sculpture...is there any way to expand/enlarge it so it can be better seen? If not, then it's fine.

Hey @Carbrera!

I see that you're making a few adjustments to the article here and there. Feel free to agree/disagree on the points I've made above in your free time. Also, if you're personally not satisfied with the review then let me know! I'm still a bit new to this process so I'm open to learning/improving. There were a few places where there was some "clumsy wording" but the overall article is good. Chilicave (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chilicave – thanks for the ping. I will look over this today and reply to your comments. I appreciate it, Carbrera (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera @Chilicave Very interesting article and I hope you do not mind my intrusion, but wanted to mention that it would be very helpful to provide more art historical context for Mark di Suvero's practice as a sculptor, including his shift toward metal in the 1970s (for example, this quote "In the 1970s his use of weathered wood gave way to the clean lines and increased tensile strength of painted steel. He also placed the pyramid back at the base of his constructions and extended it vertically to heights sometimes reaching more than forty feet" from Melissa Ragain, "Kinetics of Liberation in Mark di Suvero’s Play Sculpture", American Art, Volume 31, Number 3, Fall 2017; https://doi.org/10.1086/696114). That one is available on Google Scholar and should also be available through Wikipedia Library. Happy to provide more potential sources to provide enough context for GA scope. Ppt91 ^talk 19:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A drive-by comment re WP:GACR 6a (copyright status of media): Could you maybe explain how the image of the sculpture is validly licensed, when C:COM:FOP US says that images of public artworks in the US remain subject to the copyright of the artist? We have a copyright release from the photographer but not from the artist. One could argue that the photo is really of the building and that the sculpture is de minimis, but this is implausible for a photo used as the lead image on an article about the sculpture. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ppt91@David Eppstein

Thanks for offering your knowledge here. It's evident that I have a lot to learn!

@David Eppstein - thanks for enlightening me on this bit of information. I would like to ask though, could the lead image of the sculpture be exempted from copyright violation if one were to argue that it is of fair use (specifically pertaining to "scholarship")?

And, when revisiting Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement - "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally" - I don't think this would be harmful. But hey, just thought I would give it a shot. What would you say is the best solution/ what are our options to help Carbera get the article passed? Chilicave (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re fair use: we definitely have fair use images of some other copyrighted artworks, and it's easy to argue that the image is needed for an encyclopedic article on the topic, so I think that would be possible. Fair use images should be hosted on Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia Commons and need a fair use rationale for each article they are used in; see Wikipedia:Non-free content for details. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein amd @Chilicave I agree that this might be a problem. PD-US-no notice applies to works pre-1977 so this one will not qualify due to the opening year of 1980. I would double check the copyright notice of wherever the original photo came from (I am sure @Carbrera is aware of it, too) and, if there are still potential issues, either re-upload this picture as fair use in lower resolution or perhaps find a close-up image if you end up needing to follow the fair use route anyway? Just some thoughts. Ppt91 ^talk 15:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ppt91 – thank you for the comment. I will attempt to add a bit more information regarding that this week. I am, however, unsure how to proceed with the above comment in regards to the infobox image. While I am experienced in the GA process, I am inexperienced with art/sculpture-related articles. What do you think the best course of action would be? Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera

I found this project page, Wikipedia: Media copyright questions which can give you a step by step guide on on how to tag the lead image with a fair use rationale. You can try that out if you like.

I must say that I have no upper-hand on this, so going to pass the baton to @David Eppstein and @Ppt91 to perhaps simplify this process for us (if you have an easier way).

Thanks! Chilicave (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one GA image that I needed to handle as fair use was File:Escher Stars.JPG, in case you might find that helpful in constructing a fair use rationale. I think it's just a matter of: find an appropriate image, post it to Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) with a properly crafted fair use rationale, and either make sure that you post it at a low resolution or let a bot cut it down to low resolution for you automatically. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your tips David Eppstein – I have two more questions if that's alright. Would you agree that File:Aurora Mark di Suvero.jpg has the sort of fair use rationale that would be preferred? And, would a low resolution photograph of the sculpture from the artist's official website be appropriate? I have been unable to locate a CC file but at least two images of Inner Search exist on di Suvero's website, and of course the only one I could find on Wikipedia, which is the current image in question. Carbrera (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

That example is a little more confusing because the file is used in multiple articles, we require a separate rationale for each article a free-use image is used in, and the rationales are not all formatted the same. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Template:Non-free use rationale for more guidance. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera @David Eppstein @Chilicave For the record, I think that en-wiki is being extraordinarily stringent with how these copyright laws are applied to reproductions of public art; it impedes the educational mission of the encyclopedia and discourages potential editors who might contribute to public art. Instead of focusing on how fair use can be applied to our benefit, we waste time being constantly on the defensive, obsessing and pouring over a myriad of details as if this was a lawsuit. That said, I think that there is an obvious argument for fair use of that image so it is just the matter of reducing the resolution and adding a short rationale. Let me know if you'll need any help with that; I'll be happy to re-upload it. Ppt91 ^talk 14:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chilicave – could I have an additional week to work on this? My apologies for the delay, some unexpected work popped up for me. Carbrera (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera of course:) Chilicave (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Carbrera

Just ping me once you're done with making edits to the article, just in case I miss this. Chilicave (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera @Chilicave Where do things stand here? It looks to me like the requested changes have been pending for 2 months, so my recommendation is that if this can't be wrapped up very quickly, it be closed as a failed nomination. RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera, I'm going to have fail this nomination and you can renominate it in the future once you're ready. Thanks! Chilicave (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]