Talk:Stanley Kubrick/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A good article is

Well-written: (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage, is not required for good articles. Verifiable with no original research: (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; (b) 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);Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion. (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided. Good article nominations are reviewed for the above as well as for— Clean-up tags If there are valid clean-up tags on your article, including Cleanup, POV, Copyedit, Trivia, External links and multiple Fact tags, then you need to address the issue(s) raised before nominating the article. Stability If the article is unstable due to work being done, such as: an edit war among regular editors, frequent editing due to a current event, a major expansion or reorganization (either underway or being planned), or proposed merges and splits, then the nomination might also be failed without a thorough review, and you won't get the feedback you need. Try to resolve such issues before nominating. Obvious vandalism, even at high rates, does not count against the article.Instability If the article is unstable due to work being done, such as: an edit war among regular editors, frequent editing due to a current event, a major expansion or reorganization (either underway or being planned), or proposed merges and splits, then the nomination might also be failed without a thorough review, and you won't get the feedback you need. Try to resolve such issues before nominating. Obvious vandalism, even at high rates, does not count against the article. Article length Although there is no set guideline on article length for GAs, it is best for the article not to be too short or so long that there is not enough focus on the topic. The article should be broad, covering multiple areas to give readers an overview of the topic. Summarized lead The lead (introduction) should summarize the topic by touching on all of the various sections within the article. For articles of various lengths, guidelines recommend that the lead range from one to four paragraphs. Images Carefully scrutinize any non-free images against WP:FUC. Non-free images may be used only if their exclusion would impair a reader's understanding of the article. Non-free images must be low resolution (less than 300 pixels vertically or horizontally). This is the equivalent of 0.1 megapixels, as described here. Non-free images with higher resolutions must explain why this is necessary. and include detailed fair use rationales. On the image page, ensure that the rationale specifies the article that the image will be used for. Look at similar articles that have reached GA/FA status for examples. The use of images should comply with WP:MOS#Images and WP:CAPTIONS. If possible, use only free images that are available/applicable to the article's topic. Look for images already located on related Wikipedia articles or search Wikimedia Commons. If there are no images available, consider uploading an image of your own if you have the permission or ask the permission of an author of an image on websites such as Flickr. Inline citations Articles are expected to be well-supported by reliable sources. While it is not necessary to provide a source for every single sentence or any common knowledge facts, Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires a source to be named for all direct quotations and any statement that a reader is likely to dispute, such as statistical information (ex: 47% of all goods were sold; 3 million people attended the event; the city sustained $588 million in damages). Editors may use any style of referencing and any method of presenting citations that they choose, so long as the article is internally consistent. Well-developed articles generally use some form of inline referencing, which allows the readers and future editors to identify which specific source(s) support any given statement. The two most common inline reference styles are footnotes and parenthetical references. The footnote system uses <ref> tags to create a clickable link following the assertion that it supports. Either full citations or shortened citations followed by an alphabetical list of full citations may be used. The footnoted citations are collected with the <references /> tag in a section towards the end of the article. When using the footnote system, a source can be re-used by naming it: <ref name="Exampletitle">. This prevents you from having to retype the entire citation each time. See WP:REFNAME for more details. The parenthetical system places the full citation in an alphabetical, bulleted list near the end of the article. Within the article text, a shortened citation names the author, (usually) year, and page number in parentheses, like this: (Ritter 2002, p. 45). If parenthetical references are used inline, then the footnote system can be easily used for any necessary explanatory notes. Citations to online materials should be written out in full, in whatever style you are using, instead of simply including a bare URL. Whether you choose to manually format the full citation or use a citation template is your choice. Both of these examples (at lines #1 and #2) produce identical-looking citations for the reader (shown at #3): Tanner, Lindsey. (08 February 2008) [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm "Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy"] at [[USAToday.com]]. Retrieved on 10 February 2008. {{cite news |last=Tanner |first=Lindsey |title=Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy |publisher=[[USAToday|USAToday.com]] |date= 08 February 2008 |url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm |accessdate=10 February 2008}} Tanner, Lindsey (08 February 2008). "Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy". USAToday.com. Retrieved 10 February 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Whatever method you use for formatting, providing full citations is strongly preferred to providing only a bare URL, which appears to the reader as either this: [1] or as http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm When trying to find sources of information for an article, use a variety of resources such as books, websites, newspapers, journals, interviews, etc. Consider using a local library for researching information in printed resources. To find online resources, use websites such as news aggregators and Google Scholar, online databases, and search engine searches. If you find a dead link for a source, the Internet Archive may be able to provide an earlier version of the article. Other options for finding information include asking members of a related WikiProject, asking experts of the topic you are researching, or asking editors who have edited similar or related articles. Brief fixes Although the Manual of Style is comprehensive in improving every aspect of an article, a nomination does not need to meet every MoS guideline to reach GA status. However, the more accurately and uniformly the article follows these guidelines, the greater the benefit for its readers. A few common Manual of Style errors are listed below. Avoid contractions (such as wouldn't, can't, should've, etc.) within the article unless they are part of a direct quote. Measurements should include both the customary and metric units. Consider using the Convert template for easier editing. When using abbreviations make sure they are explained at their first occurrence in the article. When wikilinking, make sure that dates are only linked when relevant and avoid overlinking common knowledge terms and topics. See WP:CONTEXT and MOS:UNLINKDATES for guidelines. Also, ensure that the wikilink directs the reader to the correct article instead of a disambiguation page. Single sentences or very brief paragraphs normally shouldn't stand alone. Either attempt to expand on them by adding more information or going into greater detail or incorporate the paragraph with another section. Language use should be consistent. Editors contributing from different countries tend to use their own spelling conventions, which can result in, for example, use of "theatre" and "theater" in the same article. Analyze the existing prose and the topic's context to determine which variant should be used. Ensure tense remains consistent. For instance, if you say "Bob said hi," then all future commentary should be in the past tense ("Jane agreed and said hello" as opposed to "Jane says hello"). Lists should only be included if they can't be made into prose or their own article. An article that is filled with a large number of lists can be difficult to read and will not flow very well. External links Ensure the external links conform to WP:External links guidelines. Location of links Such links belong either in an infobox or in the last section on the page, which should be titled "External links"; they should not be present in the body of the article. One common error is linking company websites or stock trading websites to the names of things mentioned in the text, like this: "Meta-Wiki is an organization that..." or "Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) is a publicly traded company". Such links should be moved to the appropriate infobox and/or external links section instead. Choice of links If the subject of the article has an official website, that website should normally be linked. Otherwise, do not include too many external links, but consider providing enough high-quality links that a reader could easily find more information on the topic. Webpages that are used to support text in an article should generally not be duplicated in the external links section. No article is required to have any external links, and every external link must be justifiable. Common errors are listed at WP:ELNO.

Reviewer's initial notes

A word about copyright and fair use. All screen caps from feature films must have full "Fair use" rational, as well as all other proper information or will have to be excluded from the article. Over use: Too many fair use images will fail the wiki guidlines. Fair use images must be kept to a minimal. If one can illustrate the subject or if the loss of the image will not effect the article then it should be removed. No fair use images for illustrative purpose. All must directly relate to section of prose they accompany. Images of 3 dimensional works of art are the copyright of the artist, not the photographer unless artistic expression of image has artistic value and preparation that could not be achieved with a simple snap shot. The “Oscar,” is the copyrighted property and registered trademark and service mark of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (“Academy”). The Academy has the sole and exclusive right to reproduce, manufacture, copy, sell, display images of and publish said statuette in any size or medium, whether in three or two dimensions, and to distribute or exploit the statuette or reproductions of same by gift, sale, license or otherwise. No reproduction, replica, drawing, photograph, derivative work or other copy of the Award of Merit statuette may be made or used by any manufacturer, advertiser, organization or individual except in accordance with these regulations or under express written license from the Academy.[2] Any images of the Oscar are fair use and must meet all "Fair Use" standards and policies.

For this reason the article would likely be declined for listing. I will not quick decline. I will review the article, however if copyright becomes and issue of overwhelming proportions I am likely to decline before a complete review can be finished if it is determined that the issue is the main problem.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Review

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.
	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).	See notes below.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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.
	7. Overall assessment.

Article cannot be listed GA for overwhelming copyright issues, over use of Fair Use images and lack of rational for such

The look magazine images are missing the proper license. The one used is too specific and would be better used in permissions description box. This boilerplate can be used in the permissions section and the US government PD license used in the license section (which is missing) or both in that section. See example.[3] Also, the self portrait has an incorrect permission with the boiler plate used for license. There are no restrictions on the image and what was posted in the permissions was "access permissions" and general warnings of the source website and library. With corrections all Look Magazine images can be used in Wikipedia per MOS and PD policy, but the "i's are not dotted, nor the t's crossed" with these images for GA and there are a lot of them to correct and they are not all used in the article correctly per MOS.

Image context to article vs illustrative only

No image may be used in a Wikipedia article unless it has proper justification to be there. It cannot simply be decorative or just illustrate the subject. It must pertain to the specific line of prose it accompanies. It must speak directly to the image itself. Not just that it shows the subject. The prose and use of the image must be connected exclusively where no other image will do. Example: an image of Kubrick with a camera in his hands does go with the prose that he was a Look Magazine photographer. That would be illustrative. However if the article says "As a Look Magazine photographer, kubrick shot a self portrait of himself with showgirl, Rosemary Williams in 1949 during a shoot for the publication." Now the image has direct context to the prose and may be used.

In the "Trademark characteristics" section the images are used instead of prose. The images depict what editors claim to be the "Kubrick stare" as mentioned by "Roger Ebert and others"(Who are others?). The claim is not mentioned in the prose of the article itself, and it is not referenced at all.

Fair use

Where copyright ends...fair use begins, however Wikipedia has stipulations that must be followed. Above and beyond all other MOS guidelines for images all fair use images must have a fully detailed rational to explain, both it's use in general as well as it's use on the specific article. In this way a Fair use image can be checked by admin or other concerned editors at the image itself. Boiler plates used for image information or just that MOS info is not sufficient to maintain a fair use image on Wikipedia. For a "Fair Use" image to remain in Wikipedia it must have a fair use rational for the 4 stipulations of law...AS WELL AS...explanations required by Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline:

A well-written use rationale must explain how the use of these media meets the Non-free content criteria and should state:

• What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage? For example, if the image is a photograph or logo, the entire work is likely being used. A screenshot that reveals the most important discovery of a documentary or the ending of a movie, for example, though a very small portion of the work, may disproportionately compete with the copyright holder's use. In the case of a music sample, the length should be no longer than 10 percent of the song's original length or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter.
• If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original? In the case of music samples, has the quality been reduced from the original?
• What purpose does the image serve in the article? If applicable:
  • Is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article?
  • Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic? (e.g., a corporate logo or the box art of a DVD)
  • Does it illustrate the topic of the article? (e.g., a screen shot from a movie)
  • Is it used for commentary on a particular topic? How?
• To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image?
  • If the image is a screenshot of a movie that is used for an article about the movie, or a corporate logo, there is obviously no such thing as a "free" version of it - all of the resources in the world could not produce one. If, on the other hand, the image is a photograph, the image is more easily replaced, even if Wikipedians may lack the resources to create a replacement.
• Any other information necessary to assist others in determining whether the use of this image qualifies for fair use.

ALL of these points must be explained and not JUST the boilerplate information asked by the boiler plate itself. Why? Because these standards change as all standards at wiki may at one time and the templates only serve as the basis for creating your explanation. If using a template, you must ADD the information. Just because the template is not complete is no excuse for not having a proper rational and all images with such issues may be deleted from wiki. This is the main problem of the article on first glance. All fair use images must have complete boiler plate information completed as well as full rational provided. Most are not even complete with what little boiler plate questions there are. This editor will give time for uploaders to make the needed changes before seeking speedy deletion[4]or requesting content review.

"Fair Use" minimal usage. The policy is clear. Overuse can be defined as simply using more images than are needed. This is a copyright issue. In order for fair use to apply on an individual image it's use most have a rational for inclusion. If one image will do then no others are needed. If one is too many then one is overuse. This is the article for the subject Stanley Kubrick. There can be no justification for more images of Peter Sellers than the subject of the article. A clean up is required on images and more focus must be paid to the subject of biography on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A few Notes

Mad Scientist. Your explanation of the images problem here is much more cogent and clear than your note at the AfD discussion of the Lolita image, so excuse my having gotten snappy with you over there.

The Peter Sellers images are free & public domain, and are there because he plays three radically different roles in the one film & Sellers was one of only two actors that Kubrick allowed to improvise dialogue and have a lot of creative input into his character. If that's still a problem, let me know. The text of the article does indeed discuss the "Kubrick Stare" and has recently been amended to clarify who else besides Ebert has commented it (the phrase was coined by Kubrick's camera-man- this is now in the article.)(and is appropriately referenced).

That said, I made quite a bit of effort to make sure these images were WP:NFCC compliant, but evidently not enough, and may not understand the issues clearly. I admit that the rationales are skimpy. Let's see if they can be improved. Thanks for going through process & peer review and not just deleting images willy-nilly.

I didn't upload the Look magazine images, and have less to say about their status. I didn't even check to see if they were non-free or not. There may be a better choice of such a magazine photo than the one currently used.

I have two minutes left on this computer in a public library, and have also run out (for now) of things to say. I will later try to post here a general sketch of what I think is the broad rationale of each of the images.

Believe me, there are dozens and dozens of images I have looked at and not put here because I felt they were obviously not at all complaint with WP:NFCC and could be possibly construed to add to the reader's understanding. All the ones I put here, I believed they did even if the explanation does not seem fully adequate.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

After reading the "A Good Article Is" section posted above by User:Amadscientist in the GA review, I noticed this statement: "Non-free images must be low resolution (less than 300 pixels vertically or horizontally). This is the equivalent of 0.1 megapixels, as described here. Non-free images with higher resolutions must explain why this is necessary".There is no basis for this statement anywhere in WP:NFCC, WP:IUP, WP:IMAGES, WP:GACR, WP:RAT, WP:MOSIM, or in the Non-fair use template here. If there is no basis for this statement, it should be excised from that "guideline" as there is nothing to support it. Shirtwaist ☎ 12:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)