Talk:International Dunhuang Project/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I will begin review shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Reviewer notes:

The license on the infobox image fails Public Domain standards. While having both a copyright license AND a public domain license may pass criteria for usage on Wikimedia Commons (which I doubt) it does not meet criteria for use in a GA article on Wikipedia. Either it is...or it is not. At this time the conflicting license tagging leaves the reviewer no choice but to fail the image itself. If the image is copyrighted than its need a full "Fair Use" rational. If it is in the public Domain, verification is required as the source is linked directly to the refence website. This reviewer has an understanding of copyright and fair use. According to UK copyright law: Names, titles, short phrases and colours are not generally considered unique or substantial enough to be covered, but a creation, such as a logo, that combines these elements may be. Placement, sizing, color, dropshadow, gradient fill and font choice are all design elements that require work by an individual. The "Logo" clearly is not a simple plain text title but indeed contains artistic "choices" regardles of opinion of the uploader. While the company may or may not claim copyright the artist may. A clear disclaimer by the owners is required to set public domain of any image younger than 70 years.
I disagree. The logo has no original artwork, but is just a combination of text and a public domain image. According to my interpretation of Commons guidelines it would not meet the criteria for copyright protection. BabelStone (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot interpret past Copyright. Your interpretation is not the basis of the review, but the visual examination of the actual work. As stated above, it meets criteria for copyright status based on the facts. This is actualy part of the basis for my claim of bias. I mean you no insult or disrespect, so I apologise if you feel slighted. It is not my intention.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel slighted or offended -- copyright is a very tricky business, and I may well be wrong in my interpretation. Would you be so kind as to nominate the image for deletion on Commons, and then we can see what the copyright gurus have to say. If it is deleted, then I will consider uploading to Wikipedia with a fair usage rationale. BabelStone (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the file to Commons in good faith in the belief that the logo does not meet the threshold of originality for copyright, but given your concerns I have now proposed it for deletion to see what the community consensus is. I have also reviewed the copyright status of the other images used in the article, and realised that File:Aurel Stein’s 1907 view of Mogao Cave 16, with a portion.jpg is mistagged and probably still in copyright, so I have removed that image from the article and proposed it for deletion. BabelStone (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:International Dunhuang Project logo.jpg has now been through a deletion debate, and the result was keep under the rationale of PD-textlogo. BabelStone (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has few references. It relies heavily on one source. While an attempt has been made to add to references, at this time the artlicle still contains too few references even after a peer review stated clearly that they had indeed found more. For this size article I would expect less dependence on the official website.
I agree that it does have an overreliance on the IDP site as a source. This is because there seem to be no reliable 3rd party sources that provide useful and detailed information about the activities of the IDP. However, the section on the collections could be augmented with references from other sources relating to the collecting activities of Stein, Pelliot, Kozlov, Otani, etc. BabelStone (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to address your concerns by adding some more references from different sources. Note that I used those sources that the peer review found where possible, but almost all of the sources found with the search were unusable because they merely mentioned the IDP in passing and gave no useful information, or were unavailable to me, or were writen by IDP staff. BabelStone (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the article is not a fair representation and may indeed contain bias from overuse of the official website. More outside publications to keep the article from be merely a pamphlet.
It is hard to imagine what bias there could be in an article that is mostly factual. Perhaps you are suggesting that the IDP is lying about how many images it has digitised, and we should not rely on their count -- but what other source could we rely on? -- any journalistic source will just be repeating what the IDP has told them. BabelStone (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful if you could give some specific examples of perceived bias or unfair representation. I have tried to add some more 3rd party sources as you requested, but there are very few 3rd party sources that give any useful information about the IDP, and many details of the IDP project can only be sourced to the IDP web site or the IDP Newsletter. In this respect I think the article is similar to the British Library article (which recently achieved GA status), which also, of necessity, heavily references the British Library web site. BabelStone (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last edit on the article was Febuary 6, 2011. No work has been attempted on the article in nearly a month. It is the belief of the reviewer that the amount of research needed to bring up to GA standard is likely to take longer than a 7 day hold would permit, Therefore I am failing the article for GA at this time.
What is the relevance that the article has not been edited for a month? I stopped actively editing when I submitted it for GA review as it was then at a state that I thought was ready for GA review, and I would be able to further improve and modify the article in the light of the GA review. I think that quick failing this article just in order to reduce the GAN backlog is a little harsh, as your only criticism of it seems to be that it needs a wider range of sources for references, which is surely something that could easily be addressed in a week if any such sources existed. However, as I have been unable to find any useful 3rd party sources that discuss the IDP in the requisite detail, it would be impossible to address your concerns, so I am not going to argue the point. I am personally satisfied that this is a good article, but if it does not meet all the GA criteria, so be it. BabelStone (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is nominated and no further work is done on the article by the single editor working on it, it shows, at the very least, that the editor has made a decision that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, that no article is ever "Finished". While it is true, much of the article is good, the overriding issue to fail was lack of further input and a perception of bais TOWARDS the subject. Your response in anger at both my review decision and my complience to wikipedia MoS and Wikimedia Commons policy doesn't make me feel the decision was incorrect. Misinterpreting "Quick Fail" is but one illustration to your misunderstanding guidelines. None of the criteria for quick fail was used. I read the article, left notes and made a decision. I can only say that your lack of interest in making any of the needed changes satisfies my opinion that this would have not been worked out in a hold period. It isn't that there was so much work that it could not be done, simply that I saw nothing to indicate that it would be. You must understand one thing, if nothing else. It is not required to place a hold to either pass or fail a GA nomination.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not angry at all, and I apologise if any of my comments seemed uncivil to you; I am simply disappointed that you failed the article without giving me time to attempt to address your concerns. I do not know why you would take my disagreement with you over the copyright status of the IDP logo as a sign of anger -- it is merely a sign of disagreement between two editors on a particular issue, and I am quite happy to abide by community consensus if that is that the logo should be deleted from Commons. Nor am I angry with your "complience to wikipedia MoS" (is there anywhere where the article does not comply to the MoS? -- you have checked that box); and I agree with you that the article's over reliance on the IDP web site as a source is unsatisfactory, and I hope to address that over the next day or two. BabelStone (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I am sure you have the best interest of the article at heart and look forward to seeing it eventualy make it to GA. The image in question is not compliant to MoS in regards to proper license. It is the opinion of the reviewer that the logo does meet legal requirements for Copyright as mentioned. This is not likely to be resolved within a hold period. It could be deleted from Commons (eventualy this may be the case) and then uploaded to Wikipedia as "Fair Use' following MoS guidelines for such use. This is common of wiki. The over use of the official website also raises some COI concerns: COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups.Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This is certainly not to say that you have any conflict of interests. Indeed, being an interested party makes you an ideal editor to improve the article. It is just a question of how much is too much. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view also states: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." It also states: "Due and undue weight = Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I do not have (and never have had) any affiliation with the IDP, the British Library or any of the other participating institutes, and created the article as part of the current British Library - Wikipedia collaboration effort because I have a personal research interest in some of the materials digitised by the IDP. I am well aware of NPOV, and have never before been accused of violating this policy; and have certainly tried to be scrupulously neutral and unbiased in editing this article. But to be honest in order to be biased there has to be two divergent points of view, and I don't know what the two points of view are in this case. The IDP is an international collaboration between libraries to digitise and preserve manuscripts etc., and I don't think that there is any argument or controversy about what the aims and results of the project are, so I really I don't know what other points of view I should be trying represent in the article (the only sources with anything much to say about the IDP are the British Library or other participating institutes or their staff). I am not angry, just a little confused about where exactly you perceive non-neutral or biased points of view in the article. If you could point out (or tag in the article) specific areas of concern wrt bias or sourcing that you think need to be addressed it would be very helpful to me. BabelStone (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]