Talk:Neri Oxman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Giving this article a Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I re-read the lead section and think that one of the sentences needs to be adjusted:

   Stylistic trademarks include brightly colored and textured surfaces with structure at many scales, and composite materials whose hardness, color, and shape vary over an object. The results are often designed to be worn or touched, and inspired by nature and biology.

   This sentence might seem to be perfectly clear to the writer but I am concerned that these particular adjectives are not specifically addressed within the main body. Am willing to be convinced otherwise - let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

   See below - this has been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The reference-styles are fine. It would be better if all the dates were broth into agreement with each other, there are some with month day year (August 15, 2011) and some with yyyy-mm-dd (2011-08-11). Shearonink (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   References #20, 63, 66 have all gone dead. Reference #60 timed-out & seems broken - there seems to be some kind of technical issue from the website's end. Shearonink (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

   Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Copyvio tool found no problems. Shearonink (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Giving this another readthrough. Shearonink (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit-warring, very stable. Shearonink (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The infobox image is problematic - the source image was deleted from Commons because it lacked the permissions parameter so I'm not sure this derived-image should even be on Commons. Shearonink (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

   I am passing this criteria because the original image did have the proper permissions and the nominator/editor is working on getting them back for this image. Shearonink (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This review is On Hold pending the "Remaining issues" concerns. Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

   Congrats, it is now a GA. Shearonink (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shearonink, I fixed or added archival links to the 3 above, and made a couple other tweaks. Thanks for caching the profile photo, I'm pretty sure there was an email release last year. Looks like the original was deleted quickly b/c it wasn't in use, I will doublecheck on the release. Regards, – SJ + 23:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sj: Thanks for fixing those. That one sentence in the lead is my main are of concern at this point. I will be giving the article another proofreading type read through to see if there is anything I missed. Shearonink (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll work this weekend on specific references to that related to each work. And if the original profile photo isn't accepted, it can be swapped for this one. Regards, – SJ + 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I replaced the first photo with a high-resolution one which I believe has been cleared via OTRS (no on-wiki confirmation yet). – SJ + 02:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sj: I don't know if you've noticed but the image is due to be deleted around March 7th or so unless the permissions-issue is fully-corrected, please check File:Neri Oxman by Noah Kalina.jpg. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Remaining issues

@Sj: The remaining single issue for me is the sentence in the lead section that describes Oxman's work:

• Stylistic trademarks include brightly colored and textured surfaces with structure at many scales, and composite materials whose hardness, color, and shape vary over an object. The results are often designed to be worn or touched, and inspired by nature and biology.

This POV-description is not directly stated or referenced within the main body of the article. Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body of the article, this statement is 1)out of place and 2)also not sourced from a reliable source. If this statement is verifiable from a reliable source then that source needs to be cited. Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Shearonink: – I added details of the multi-material and multi-scale work for some of the relevant pieces (Beings, Mushtari, Rottlace). Some of the current sources mention or showcase these features, and I added two more. Regards, – SJ + 22:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sj: Much better, your edits lay out the stylistic parameters of Oxman's work according to reliable sources...well-done. The last remaining issue is the infobox-image's permission. Once that is completed I will be able to finish up my review. Shearonink (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image permission

@Sj: The file is still lacking the proper permission. I know that the uploader/Noah Kalina indicated that permission was emailed in to (I think?)Commons, but you should be aware that Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing states "Please note that submissions made by email may take several weeks to process." I think the best course of action going forward is to post on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard and ask about the status of the email/OTRS ticket. Another way for the photo to remain on Commons would be for the photographer to donate it, please refer to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Donating your photographs. Hope this helps, I'd hate for the article to lose the image because of the permissions issue. Shearonink (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I've asked a couple OTRS users if they could confirm. If it takes weeks to process those emails, I don't see why Commons users propose deletion within a week! – SJ + 05:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Me neither but that's the way it is...the various Wikimedia projects are so very careful of anything that has to do with WP:BLPs. Image-permissions are not my strong suit. The photog could donate the image with one of the CC-BY-SA licenses but not everyone wants to do that & give up their rights to the image. Maybe you could ask someone over at Commons? In any case, no worries about the Review - I'll hold it until we hear something. If the issue for deletion is that it's being used in an article, can the image be held "backstage" until the permissions/OTRS info comes through? Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Progress: now it's being processed rather than deleted. I believe the photog already granted all rights to the subject, and the subject is confirming they are donating them under BY-SA. Be well, – SJ + 08:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Image permission is in-process, all is well. Shearonink (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)