Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Economy of the Iroquois

Economy of the Iroquois[edit]

(Self-Nom) The article is thorough, completely referenced, well illustrated and well laid out. I think this meets all the criteria for a featured article. The peer review (before a name change) of this article offered several constructive criticism, and I think they have all been addressed. FYI, I have another image to add of a Mohawk steel worker, but I need to get my regular computer with photo-editing.--Bkwillwm 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good article, though I'm not keen on the 'Web' subsection in the References section and I think there should be a picture beside the lead. — Wackymacs 10:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Kefalonia 13:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I want to support, but the fair use status of the casino image is rather sketchy (read the text on the image page carefully), and it doesn't make sense to me to repeat citations of the same page in a book. For example, inline citations 7, 8, and 9 are all the same—why not just have one at the end of that paragraph? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The casino image comes from here which is a link off of the casino's page labeled as "press room." The site is a promotional news website, and the image comes from the "photo bin" which some links direct to as a media resource. For instance, searching the media resources presents that photo here. The page also has the look of a classic media promotional site (i.e. it has many promotional type shots linked to high-res verisions). Albeit the site could be more explicit, but I think it's pretty clearly a promotional image. Was this you concern? Thanks for pointing out the repeated inline citation problem. I'll address that.--Bkwillwm 18:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material to illustrate the work or product in question... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." To me, that reads that the casino image can only be placed on an article on the casino itself, not on an article covering an indirectly related topic. I'm not sure about this, so I'll defer to others more knowledgable in the area. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fair use goes into a little more detail and makes me feel the image is acceptable. The article is not directly about the casino, but it is discussed and fair use images are not limited to one article (see fair use page). High-res images are usually not fair use for items such as books and CDs since they may aid piracy. I do not think that the low-res requirement is as important for the image in question. A lower-res version might be prefered though (this comp doesn't have a photo editor, so I can't do it). Most importantly, the photo's use here does not threaten the casino's welfare, if anything, it provides exposure, which is the purpose of publicity photographs. I'm not a fair use expert either. So I'll defer as well, but that's my rationale for including the image.--Bkwillwm 01:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Revolución (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks very good. The first couple sentence under "Division of labor" are a bit awkward though, and I'd also like a picture in the lead (the "Division of labor" section is a bit cluttered, maybe move one of those up?). Tuf-Kat 05:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work. If you {{inote}} for inline citations, you won't require the unwieldy notes section. See India for instance. Anyway, thats just my preference. --Pamri • Talk 03:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]