Wikipedia:Peer review/Alodia/archive1
Alodia[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article going for a "Good article" status. I am looking for people to review it for, like, discovering errors like grammar mistakes.
Thanks, LeGabrie (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- The lede doesn't accurately summarize the article. It should reflect the major content of each section.
- Introductory sentences are good ideas for the paragraphs, but each should be referenced. Don't make conclusions that aren't expressly paraphrased from a source. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia aims to summarize the secondary source. If a conclusion is important, a secondary source will make it. Until then, it's fine to just list the related conclusions, as put in the sources, in order.
- Keep encyclopedic tone by replacing "we" ("If we can believe John", "At least we learn the names", "we can only guess that") with the actual subject ("scholars"?)
- I'll make some in-line tags. Feel free to resolve (or remove without resolution) in-line, or bring here for discussion if helpful
- The museum images (Sudan Archaeological Research Society, Archaeological Museum of Gdansk, etc.) need to specifically allow relicensing under the stated licensing (you used cc-by-sa-4.0). You can find the standard consent at commons:Commons:Consent. That permission can be documented by forwarding the email to WP:OTRS.
- Any reason why you're not using standard citation templates? {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}} can make your life much easier, and you can link your short footnotes to the main footnotes with {{sfn}}. (For an example, see User:Czar/drafts/Idia masks.) If you use a citation manager such as Zotero, there are also ways to export direct from there (and import journal articles from their websites).
- This topic can get thick with jargon. Gear the text for a general audience by explaining new terms and linking to related concepts
- Let me know if you need help with any of the above and I'll get you started. If it's too much, I can also do most of it for you, though of course, teach a person to fish... and so on
czar 22:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Has been a while, but there we go: Reworked the lead section and citations, put references on introductory sentences or deleted them straight away and the "we's" are gone. Concerning the images: How exactly should I do it? Just for clarification: Their creators gave me the full rights for them.
- LeGabrie (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- First, determine who holds the copyright. Photos are owned by the original photographer, not the person who happens to have the photo. Illustrations are owned by the artist, etc. The artistry of old artifacts is out of copyright, but a photograph that depicts the work usually has its own copyright. The rights holders need to send their explicit commons:Commons:Consent to license their works under free-use (Wikipedia-compatible) Creative Commons terms to the email address (called "OTRS") listed on that page. The emailer will receive a ticket number, so you might prefer to forward the permissions to that OTRS email address yourself. Someone will eventually review the ticket and archive the permissions for posterity. If you don't know the copyright holder, bring the case here and tell me what you know so I can help. czar 15:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oh man, that's complicated as hell. Might as well just ask the copyright holders to upload the pictures with an own account. In the meantime: Is the rest of the entry ok? LeGabrie (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's mainly in the interest of protecting the actual rightsholders by confirming eligibility. The most complicated part is having the copyright holders send the license boilerplate from an official email, as there are a variety of ways to handle the subsequent steps. It could be as simple as linking to the uploaded file and including the boilerplate for the copyright holder to copy/paste in return.
- Improvements have been good, although on skim I can tell that the jargon will need some finesse for a general audience (Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable) and the lede should still expand in scope to summarize the breadth of the article. I'm booked up right now but try me in a month or so and I can give it a copyedit/read-through. czar 09:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oh man, that's complicated as hell. Might as well just ask the copyright holders to upload the pictures with an own account. In the meantime: Is the rest of the entry ok? LeGabrie (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- First, determine who holds the copyright. Photos are owned by the original photographer, not the person who happens to have the photo. Illustrations are owned by the artist, etc. The artistry of old artifacts is out of copyright, but a photograph that depicts the work usually has its own copyright. The rights holders need to send their explicit commons:Commons:Consent to license their works under free-use (Wikipedia-compatible) Creative Commons terms to the email address (called "OTRS") listed on that page. The emailer will receive a ticket number, so you might prefer to forward the permissions to that OTRS email address yourself. Someone will eventually review the ticket and archive the permissions for posterity. If you don't know the copyright holder, bring the case here and tell me what you know so I can help. czar 15:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)