Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: hamiltonstone ( talk) 03:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC) This article is relatively thorough, and extensively referenced. Images appear generally OK. I am assuming that Scotland has freedom of panorama; if not, then the photos of sculptures may be a violation of the artists' copyright.
But the elephant in the room (if you are familiar with that expression) is this: Glenrothes won the 2009 Carbuncles Awards for its depressed, investment-starved and ugly town centre. See, eg, this, this, this and this. Probably the most notable thing to have happened to Glenrothes, unfortunately, it should be mentioned in the lead and in the body text. Done
The only other event that might be worth covering is the 2008 by-election, notable for the lossof voting records and for "The result was a huge fillip to the Prime Minister, who broke with convention and risked his political credibility by joining the campaign trail with his wife, Sarah" (from this).
Other points:
Will keep an eye out. Any questions, raise them either here ot at my talk page. hamiltonstone ( talk) 03:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments, I appreciate the time you have taken in reviewing the article and I shall address your points in turn if I may over the next few days.
Perhaps you could clarify a few points before I undertake some of the work.
In relation to the point on public artworks and the rights associated with photographing them, and distributing or displaying the photos to others, Section 62 of the Copyright, designs and patents Act 1988 states:
Representation of certain artistic works on public display (1) This section applies to— (a) buildings, and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. (2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by— (a) making a graphic work representing it, (b) making a photograph or film of it, or (c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it. (3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.
I am therefore satisfied that there is no issue relating to the display of the images of the public artworks on the Wikipedia page. I would appreciate any thoughts you may have on this.
In relation to your point on the "carbuncle award". There was mention of this previously in the article, however this was removed by another editor. For what reason I do not know? I would be happy to reinstate it if required. However I think its worth noting that the Carbuncle Awards contest is run by a body which has no official status, does not reflect an official Scottish view and only reflects the views of a self proclaimed minority, who operate a contest that is in itself questionable in the fairness and way it is run. Is it therefore reliable, crediable and relevant to include mention of such an award in an encyclopedic article?
With regards to your comments on St Columba's church. I realise Modern Architecture is not to everyone's taste. Whether a person "likes" the building or not in this case is irrelevant. As stated we shouldnt be providing bias opinions. The church has been officially recognised by Historic Scotland as an important piece of modern Scottish Architecture and has been given Grade-A listed status. I shall include further sources to back up the "Mondrian inspired" quote.
I will endeavour to reword some of the article, as I agree that in places it is not neutral.
The material under "geography" that reads more like either history, or architectural styles. Yes you are correct, the reason for this is that the geography section originally had a "built environment" sub-section which highlighted more town planning issues than geographical. This was created at the request of a former peer reviewer who suggested it would be useful. Perhaps I should reinstate the sub-heading to separate the distinction with geography? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.
Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcwesty ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks McWesty, that looks better, and well done getting the picture of the other church as well as a cite for the Mondrian inspiration. I'm passing this at GA. Some thngsstill to do:
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: hamiltonstone ( talk) 03:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC) This article is relatively thorough, and extensively referenced. Images appear generally OK. I am assuming that Scotland has freedom of panorama; if not, then the photos of sculptures may be a violation of the artists' copyright.
But the elephant in the room (if you are familiar with that expression) is this: Glenrothes won the 2009 Carbuncles Awards for its depressed, investment-starved and ugly town centre. See, eg, this, this, this and this. Probably the most notable thing to have happened to Glenrothes, unfortunately, it should be mentioned in the lead and in the body text. Done
The only other event that might be worth covering is the 2008 by-election, notable for the lossof voting records and for "The result was a huge fillip to the Prime Minister, who broke with convention and risked his political credibility by joining the campaign trail with his wife, Sarah" (from this).
Other points:
Will keep an eye out. Any questions, raise them either here ot at my talk page. hamiltonstone ( talk) 03:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments, I appreciate the time you have taken in reviewing the article and I shall address your points in turn if I may over the next few days.
Perhaps you could clarify a few points before I undertake some of the work.
In relation to the point on public artworks and the rights associated with photographing them, and distributing or displaying the photos to others, Section 62 of the Copyright, designs and patents Act 1988 states:
Representation of certain artistic works on public display (1) This section applies to— (a) buildings, and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. (2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by— (a) making a graphic work representing it, (b) making a photograph or film of it, or (c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it. (3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.
I am therefore satisfied that there is no issue relating to the display of the images of the public artworks on the Wikipedia page. I would appreciate any thoughts you may have on this.
In relation to your point on the "carbuncle award". There was mention of this previously in the article, however this was removed by another editor. For what reason I do not know? I would be happy to reinstate it if required. However I think its worth noting that the Carbuncle Awards contest is run by a body which has no official status, does not reflect an official Scottish view and only reflects the views of a self proclaimed minority, who operate a contest that is in itself questionable in the fairness and way it is run. Is it therefore reliable, crediable and relevant to include mention of such an award in an encyclopedic article?
With regards to your comments on St Columba's church. I realise Modern Architecture is not to everyone's taste. Whether a person "likes" the building or not in this case is irrelevant. As stated we shouldnt be providing bias opinions. The church has been officially recognised by Historic Scotland as an important piece of modern Scottish Architecture and has been given Grade-A listed status. I shall include further sources to back up the "Mondrian inspired" quote.
I will endeavour to reword some of the article, as I agree that in places it is not neutral.
The material under "geography" that reads more like either history, or architectural styles. Yes you are correct, the reason for this is that the geography section originally had a "built environment" sub-section which highlighted more town planning issues than geographical. This was created at the request of a former peer reviewer who suggested it would be useful. Perhaps I should reinstate the sub-heading to separate the distinction with geography? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.
Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcwesty ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks McWesty, that looks better, and well done getting the picture of the other church as well as a cite for the Mondrian inspiration. I'm passing this at GA. Some thngsstill to do: