Talk:Woodstock Mural/Archive 1

Source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

~~http://www.readthebee.com/businesswantads.html~~ ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Thank you for taking time to review and copy edit the article. Regarding the "clarify" tag. The source also says "the artist" was present. Do you think it is fair to assume "the artist" refers to Mike Lawrence, or do you think the wording should be altered or eliminated to avoid any ambiguity or misinformation? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused, because someone other than Lawrence did the actual painting. As a layperson, I would call someone who can paint a mural like this an artist, even if she didn't design it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: OK. I went ahead and just removed the sentence, which I don't think is particular necessary. Thank you, again, for your assistance! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:46, 15 November 2015 (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.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Woodstock Mural/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, I'm concerned about the use of images. There is no freedom of panorama in the US[1], therefore the photos of paintings are technically "copyright violations". This would mean that such photos can only be used here under fair use, in low resolution...
- Thanks for offering to review this article. Is this true even if the work is not copyrighted? I cannot find a copyright mark on the mural. If anything, we should be able to keep one image of the old mural and one image of the current mural under fair use. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, copyright is automatic now, though artwork and such needed a mark until the 1970s I believe. Since the mural is so recent, it is certainly covered by current US laws. To be entirely sure, we could bring this up at Wikimedia Commons to get some more views on this. But from my experience, these photos are not "allowed" there. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place at Commons to ask for an image or category review re: copyright? I am not familiar. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the place:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I started a discussion here. Feel free to contribute to the discussion as you see fit. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've elaborated there. Would of course be a loss for the article if the images are deleted, but it is necessary to examine the problem... FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to address any other concerns you may have about the article while we wait for a response. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, will add comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Woodstock Mural[1] was designed by Mike Lawrence" Present him as artist, as you do in the intro?
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The "imposing" reproduction" Why imposing, compared to the original?
- Not sure, just including a description used by the source. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"in the form of an Asian urban farmer" Why is her ethnicity mentioned, and not that of the other two characters?
- Just following the sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not much of a "politically correct" guy myself, but personally I'd think girl or female would suffice... Seems a bit odd to point out ethnicity for only one out of three characters. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - But her ethnicity is mentioned specifically as such by sources and is related to other Asian-related imagery such as the Chinese characters, inspired by the local Mandarin school. I see where you are coming from, but her ethnicity is not accidental, irrelevant, or random. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Mandarin is for the middle girl, who is not Asian. The last (Asian) girl has no relation to the Chinese text, she is the "Asian urban farmer". Is there any significance to her ethnicity and farming? I'm not necessarily demanding a change, it just seems puzzling. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, you are right re: middle vs. right figures. My only counter is, why do we ever mention someone's ethnicity? Why do we have categories like Category:Black people in art? I don't see any harm in keeping "Asian" but we can solicit a third opinion if you want. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, my only quibble is why only mention the ethnicity of one out of three depicted people, if it is not relevant to the work? I imagine it is just to show "diversity", which is a fine enough justification for me, but if the sources don't state this explicitly, it is of course only an assumption. FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going off how the sources describe the figures. They don't say white or caucasian or Anglo, etc., but do say Asian. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Perhaps add that it's a girl/female then? That's specified for the two other characters. The third one is just described as "Asian" by comparison. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"but WNA later proposed a mural with a different design" Anything on what the original design was?
- Sources say the design was different, but to me it looks very similar. See this link for the Lutz Tavern proposed design. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Following an outreach effort to locate an artist," Wasn't Lawrence the artist?
- Yes, he was hired following the outreach effort. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then the chronology under history seems a bit confusing, since you say "RACC published an image of Lawrence's proposed mural and said the goal of the project was" before saying "Following an outreach effort to locate an artist, WNA and Lawrence held a brainstorming session", which kind of makes it seem the outreach was for an additional artist. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great observation. I changed the order of paragraphs. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I updated the lead as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How was Lawrence chosen?
- Unsure, except that he was selected by the mural committee. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not entirely clear to me how many artists were involved?
- One artist/designer, but the mural was physically painted/reproduced by others. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, all looks good to me with the text now. Now we just need some solution to the image problem... FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be some time before the image issue is resolved. Shall I remove images here to make the article GA-compliant, or should we just put everything on hold? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wait it out for a week or so, I won't mind if the images stay until the issue is resolved on Commons, and I can pass before that. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, no response. Ok, I'll pass this tonight if no one answers. But now you're at least prepared in case someone else brings it up. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so now I'll pass this, nice article in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:52, 8 March 2016 (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.