Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 26, 2007

Picture

Ok, why is there (yet again) no picture? May I remind you that the Main Page has a fair use exemption? Modest Genius ^talk 00:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no MainPage exemption there anymore, and pretty significant precedent that we should not have such an exemption was set at the recent Scooby-Doo TFA.--Pharos 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#Main Page Exemption. The Main Page example was removed because it was a poor example of the contents of Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions, not because it is no longer an exemption. There is no consensus to remove the Main Page. ShadowHalo 04:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty clear that Gmaxwell removed the exemption precisely because it is considered that an exemption should no longer apply to the MainPage. In this, he cited recent board policy decisions (which he is fairly familiar with), and noone from the board has at all objected to that interpretation.--Pharos 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask Pharos; (s)he was the one who removed it. The image is horribly misleading though, and even with the caption, it looks like the image there is supposed to be Woodruff. I removed the image not realizing that there had been another one before it, so I've reverted back to the picture of Woodruff. ShadowHalo 00:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the caption clearer.--Pharos 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written blurb

I find the main page blurb poorly written and wish some copy-edit magician could fix it up. In my opinion it should start out explaining why he is famous, and what his highest accomplishments were, not about where he went to school and what Army Corps he served in in his youth. The Fa-blurb shouldn't try to keep any chronology, put the interesting facts first!Shanes 01:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A free portrait of Woodruff almost certainly exists

Please see Talk:Michael_Woodruff#Free_image_possibility. I did make some effort to contact the original author of the article about this (he has retired from Wikipedia), but I did not get a chance to take that book out of the library. The fact that a free portrait almost certainly exists makes this case more clear-cut in my opinion that the Scooby-Doo TFA.--Pharos 03:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting caption directly in the box

I realize this is unconventional practice, but I put the caption directly in the box because of potential complaints about a "misleading" image (already raised above, when there was a less-detailed caption). I think this may be necessary in situations where, because of the newly strengthened free image policy, we will be using a image of something other than the direct subject of the article. This should be a relatively rare occurrence.--Pharos 04:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just posting here to note that I've seen this and, though I removed it in the first place, I have discussed with Pharos and all is fine. Thank you for getting in touch. Bobo . 05:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]