Talk:Meat dress of Lady Gaga/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Stan mact (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Good information gather so far - a few more details would fill this article out to meet the criteria for a GA.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
More official sources and perspectives required in the Reception section. Suggest including PETA as a reference as well as other activist groups like Care2 and Vegetarian Society. Also, this reference link is broken: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/15/3704582/lady-gagas-meat-dress-goes-to.html
Removed that reference and replaced the paragraph it was covering with one based on the link you gave below to the Vancouver Sun - great deal of thanks for that as it described the process in far more detail. I've added PETA as an additional citation, and added information fromthe Vegetarian Society. I'm not entirely convinced that Care2 is a reliable source as it's basically a social network. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused): There are more recent details on the preservation of the dress here: http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Taxidermist+preserves+Lady+Gaga+meat+dress+posterity/5145206/story.html
Thanks for the link, I've incorporated information from it into the article. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
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):
Not entirely sure if the image from MTV is fair-use. Second opinion would be great.
I've left a message on J Milburn's talk page to request that they have a look at the new image and give a second opinion. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Good luck improving the article!
Thanks for the review, and let me know if theres anything else I need to look at. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wracking my brain about this image. I'm still not sure that it meets NFCC#2, as this is clearly a photograph belonging to a company that makes a lot of money from its photography, and it does not appear to be one released as some kind of publicity photo. I strongly doubt it is replaceable, and I suspect it meets NFCC#8, but I think some wider discussion is required- perhaps it should be posted on WT:NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the view, I've opened a discussion at WT:NFCC as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good news on the image, a free use one has been found on Flickr. I'll upload it tonight to commons once I get home from work and I'll swap them out. Miyagawa (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news on the free use image. See Wikipedia talk:NFCC#Meat dress of Lady_Gaga. However, it has been pointed out that for this article and this article only, the current image is suitable as a non-free image. Miyagawa (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third party opinion here. If there is concern that the MTV image would prevent commercial opportunities, perhaps a non-free image of the dress at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is an alternative. I see several through a Google image search (although none is as impacting as the MTV photo). —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current image was proposed on the talk page as a replacement for the original image which was thought to prevent commercial opportunities. The source was suggested as the event organiser rather than a specific press agency, and I reduced the physical size of the image to reduce the use of it being reused as well. It's been discussed at NFCC and the current image has been approved to be used in this article. The discussion has since been archived at the above link, and I believe is on page 52; so the image should no longer be an issue. Miyagawa (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per NFCC, I feel that the inclusion of the image solely for this aricle only passes the criterias. No other image would be increasing reader's understanding, unless it is an image of the said artist in the said dress. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as its now over a month since the initial review and the reviewer hasn't returned, I'm going to request a second opinion on this and see if we can get this wrapped up. Miyagawa (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to have been reached on the picture , and no other issues were noted, so I'll close the review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.