Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cleveland Bay/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 19 December 2009 [1].
Cleveland Bay[edit]
- Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This article on a fairly rare British horse breed has gone through GA and PR, as well as being looked over by other equine editors and having a prose review by Malleus. I believe the article meets all of the FA criteria, and I look forward to any and all comments! Dana boomer (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WIkiProject Equine members reviewed this article and support its FA nimonation. Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Minor stuff, probably not even for you to worry about.
- No dabs or dead externals, and dates look nice and consistent.
- Images all have alt text that looks good. Does the navbox image really need an alt? (It seems purely decorative.)
- I'm not sure about the navbox image - I didn't write the alt text for it, and I'm not sure where the line is drawn between decorative and non. If the alt text should be removed, please let me know and I will do this.
- The infobox isn't bad, except it's repetitive in the last third: can't we just link the organization names instead of saying "Breed standards" thrice? It also uses colons after attribute names ("Distinguishing features:", "Country of origin:", ...), which seem redundant.
- This has never come up before in FACs, and I'm not really sure how to change the breed standards part. IMO, the colons aren't redundant, but they can be removed if other reviewers agree (and again, this hasn't come up before).
- It's part of the standard horse infobox, Dana is stuck with it until we come up with a more elegant solution across the infobox in general (for all 350 horse breed articles, :-P) , part of the problem is multiple nations have different breed standards, the other part is that the horse infobox was derived from the dog breeds one, which operates a bit differently... Montanabw(talk) 03:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the book titles in the "Notes" section all necessary or WikiProject standard? Dent, for example, seems to unambiguously be the Cleveland Bay Horses book in "References".
- This is my prefered referencing style, and has been considered OK for other horse breed FAs. It is the referencing style generally used in the Equine WP, although not a written guideline.
- Agreed, it's universal format in the horse breed FAs. Note in particular Thoroughbred. Once we get huge articles with massive numbers of footnotes and sources, it becomes a necessity. The need isn't as strong in shorter articles like this one, but in theory they could get there. Montanabw(talk) 03:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--an odd name 01:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies interspersed above, thanks for your comments. Dana boomer (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note I'm a WikiProject Equine member, but I haven't done any serious work on this article (I may have done some small edits in the past, I can't remember.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
In the first line, would "England" be more accurate than Great Britain? Also 250 pounds (in Uses) needs a conversion to proper units (:Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for your comments; I believe I have addressed both of them. Dana boomer (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No other concerns, so changed to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments; I believe I have addressed both of them. Dana boomer (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I dislike supporting without offering suggestions for improvement, but I couldn't find anything at fault with the article (other than the one typo and missing italic I fixed). Well done. Sasata (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (moral or otherwise) I reviewed this for GA, and it has been buffed up nicely since then. Looks great and I am at a loss to offer any further tweaks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:Images check outCould English information be added to File:Cleveland Bay hw-1-.jpg and File:Cleveland Bay.jpg? Ideally, could a link to the source be added as well? This doesn't appear to be own work, so it should be possible to tell from the source that this is licensed as claimed.- I can add English information. However, I can't find a source link, so I think that may be a moot point. I have done a Google search for "Archiv vum Besëtzer" and "Paul Berens" and come up with nothing.
- User:Cornischong, who I gather is the original uploader (?), was active on en-wiki as recently as August and has e-mail enabled. It might be worth checking with him/her for further information. Steve Smith (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can add English information. However, I can't find a source link, so I think that may be a moot point. I have done a Google search for "Archiv vum Besëtzer" and "Paul Berens" and come up with nothing.
File:Attelage en double paire.jpg needs source and author information.Steve Smith (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I can't seem to find this. I know who uploaded it to the French wiki, but the original French page seems to have been deleted because it was transferred to commons - therefore I can't see if there was originally more information on the source and the author.
- It might be worth contacting an fr-wiki admin to see if there's anything in the deleted versions of that page. There's a list of them ; the third column indicates their English proficiency, with "M" indicating a native English speaker and numbers indicating a non-native speaker, with higher numbers speaking better English. Steve Smith (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't seem to find this. I know who uploaded it to the French wiki, but the original French page seems to have been deleted because it was transferred to commons - therefore I can't see if there was originally more information on the source and the author.
- I can't find answers to either of your questions above. Does this mean that I need to remove the photos? If so, it is going to remove all three of my purebred Cleveland bay images from the article. The only one I can find to replace them with is File:Brewster park drag 1887.jpg, which isn't as nice a photo, but I believe has the correct licensing. I've done a bit of searching on the web, and can't find anything else under the proper licensing that could be uploaded. Do you have any suggestions? Dana boomer (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I think we need to get this straightened out or remove them. I know it's asinine to require the removal of images that improve the article on the basis that the correct hoops haven't been jumped through but, well, welcome to Wikipedia. Steve Smith (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have dropped notes on the page of a French admin about the third image, and on Cornischong's page about the first two. If I don't get a response soon, I'll try another English-speaking admin and drop Cornischong an e-mail. Please let me know if there is anything I can do in the meantime. Dana boomer (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the Attelage image, the French admin has responded with this:<quote>Hi, the deleted text says "Beideler René" and {{GFDL}}. There was no upload template. It seems very reasonable to assume that Beideler René (d · c · b) is the author, but it's not 100% certain. He later uploaded some properly-tagged photos which include metadata. --Gribeco (d) 11 décembre 2009 à 03:52 (CET) </quote>. Thoughts? I don't speak French, so I can't contact the original uploader personally. Dana boomer (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have dropped notes on the page of a French admin about the third image, and on Cornischong's page about the first two. If I don't get a response soon, I'll try another English-speaking admin and drop Cornischong an e-mail. Please let me know if there is anything I can do in the meantime. Dana boomer (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I think we need to get this straightened out or remove them. I know it's asinine to require the removal of images that improve the article on the basis that the correct hoops haven't been jumped through but, well, welcome to Wikipedia. Steve Smith (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that on Pitke's user page, s/he says s/he speaks an elementary level of French. Maybe Pitke can help or knows someone with sufficient fluency who can... User: Wandalstouring is German, but he too may also know some French speakers. Ditto for another German who sometimes shows up here, Kersti Nebelsiek. Not that German speakers inherently will know French, but Europeans are far more likely to either be multilingual or know people via their own wiki who are... All three either check in here often, or they have a direct link to their home language talk pages here. Maybe drop some messages Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, thanks for the note. I'll drop a note to a couple of those editors. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dropped a note to Wandalstouring, and his reply was: <quote>The uploader hasn't been active in the French wikipedia since summer 2006. He has a history of images with dubious copyright here. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</quote> Because of this, I am assuming that we have no way to verify the image licensing, and so I have exchanged the image for the Brewster park drag image mentioned above. Due to receiving no response from Cornischong on their talk page, I have sent an e-mail asking about the image licensing on the two other questionable images. Thanks for being patient as these issues are worked out. Dana boomer (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to hear that. The new photo looks good. Steve Smith (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for taking several days to reply on the final two questionable photos. After e-mailing Cornischong, I quickly received a response stating that "Besetzer" was the owner of the horses and "Paul Berens" was the coach who had the photos taken. I then e-mailed back asking how this allowed him to release the photos, and so far have received no response. I am assuming (perhaps in bad faith?) that this means he did not have permission to release the photos. Because of this, I have removed the photos from the article. My question now is - should all three of these photos be deleted for not having proper licensing? Again, apologies for the delay. Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As well you should be sorry about the delay! You've missed the deadline! No, wait, that's not right. Anyway, yes, they probably should be tagged for deletion, but I'm not very familiar with Commons deletions, and that's outside the scope of this FA review in any event. Sorry to have to do this - I feel like participating in an FAC in such a way as to make the article worse is actually against the whole idea. But, well, rules are rules. Steve Smith (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for taking several days to reply on the final two questionable photos. After e-mailing Cornischong, I quickly received a response stating that "Besetzer" was the owner of the horses and "Paul Berens" was the coach who had the photos taken. I then e-mailed back asking how this allowed him to release the photos, and so far have received no response. I am assuming (perhaps in bad faith?) that this means he did not have permission to release the photos. Because of this, I have removed the photos from the article. My question now is - should all three of these photos be deleted for not having proper licensing? Again, apologies for the delay. Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to hear that. The new photo looks good. Steve Smith (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dropped a note to Wandalstouring, and his reply was: <quote>The uploader hasn't been active in the French wikipedia since summer 2006. He has a history of images with dubious copyright here. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</quote> Because of this, I am assuming that we have no way to verify the image licensing, and so I have exchanged the image for the Brewster park drag image mentioned above. Due to receiving no response from Cornischong on their talk page, I have sent an e-mail asking about the image licensing on the two other questionable images. Thanks for being patient as these issues are worked out. Dana boomer (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, thanks for the note. I'll drop a note to a couple of those editors. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that on Pitke's user page, s/he says s/he speaks an elementary level of French. Maybe Pitke can help or knows someone with sufficient fluency who can... User: Wandalstouring is German, but he too may also know some French speakers. Ditto for another German who sometimes shows up here, Kersti Nebelsiek. Not that German speakers inherently will know French, but Europeans are far more likely to either be multilingual or know people via their own wiki who are... All three either check in here often, or they have a direct link to their home language talk pages here. Maybe drop some messages Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.