GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Amadscientist ( talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This artcle is long and detailed and will require a substantial amount of time. Editors please be patient. If it is determined that a hold is appropriate, it will begin once this reviewer has completed work.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:
Reviewer notes:
Images must comply with Manual of Style guidlines Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Image use policy: Each image has a corresponding description page. On that page, one should document the source, author and copyright status of the image, using one of the pre-defined image copyright tags. It is important to add both descriptive (who, what, when, where, why) and technical (equipment, software, etc.) information at the time of creating the page, which will be useful and highly informative to later editors and readers.
Whenever you upload an image, you should meet the following minimal requirements.
While many of the images are Public domain, their use on wikipedia in a GA article must have the proper information for consideration.
The following images have issues that need to be addressed to meet GA criteria:
*Joseph_Smith_first_vision_stained_glass.jpg = This image is owned by the Public Broadcasting sytem and it still retains the rights to this image. As stated in the terms of service: The Information available on PBS ONLINE® may include intellectual property that is protected under the copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws of the United States and/or other countries ("Intellectual Property Laws"). Such Intellectual Property Laws generally prohibit the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of all text, photographic and graphic (art and electronic) images, music, sound samplings and other protected materials. The violation of applicable Intellectual Property Laws may give rise to civil and/or criminal penalties.
While some two dimensional images are faithful reproductions Wikimedia commons states: When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects, hence the rule of thumb that "2D is OK, 3D is not". The work presented in the image is NOT a mere 2 dimensional work. Stained glass requires "choice of framing, lighting, and point of view" as using a simple flash at anytime of day or night would NOT produce the image you see as well as the fact that the work is meant to be viewed from multiple angles in the same way as a sculpture, which by definition stained glass is.
In short, the license is incorrect and the original source STILL claims copyright. This image cannot be used for GA (or Wiki at all for that matter).
. Although many materials such as stained glass and fabric possess some three-dimensional texture, at ordinary viewing distances this texture is essentially invisible. As long as the surface is not noticeably curved or tattered/broken, and the original work is old enough to have entered the public domain, it is considered a faithful reproduction of the original with no original contribution.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
06:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look at addressing the image copyright issues. If anyone else gets to it before me, then all the better. ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I emailed the Church History Museum, asking a few questions about the image. I might just take a trip to Salt Lake and photograph it myself. I've found various versions of this image online, but none under a permissible license:
I also found a similar work of art that we might consider photographing and uploading, if the original work is not copyrighted.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7156208@N02/412617797/in/photostream/
...comments? ~ B F izz 22:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
BFizz, I believe I have a handle on the infobox painting. I found the original source and author of the first image before upload. If all that was done was photoshop work to improve the image, than the information can be used.--
Amadscientist (
talk) 01:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not the same image. I will continue to research this one out. It would be a shame to lose it. Nice image.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The infobox image is easily replaced but I do intend to see if I can find the nicer version even after the review is closed. It's just a really nice image and if we can't find the original source we will have to replace with the original upload as that is from the Church archives online while the other one is not. I have found two sites that use this image but they are both message boards that mat well have taken the image from wiki. The others can simply be deleted from the article if they cannot be fixed with no loss of quality to the article itself, but work is underway to correct them by another editor.
Work this out guys. Seriously. The article just came off protection and when I began the review it seemed to be holding stable. It has lost that stability which endangers the review. One criteria for "Quick Fail" is stablity. At this point I am NOT giving up with a quick fail but if this can't be smoothed out, GA standards that might be worked out may simply be lost within hours or days if it passes GA nomination.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry. but that is simply incorrect. If the article is experiancing so many reverts that it is protected...it is unstable. The protection has been lifted and the constant reverts return. The review guidlines state "Edit warring, etc", so even though there are no real edit wars among the contributing editors, it is far from stable. I am talking about a single day. March 5th, were there was section blanking, vandalism, and simple disagreements on content and accuracy. The article is not stable. I am NOT quick failing over the issue for one reason...it wasn't so when I began. However, I am failing the stability portion of the review.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The lede has one major problem.....it has little to do with Smith himself and skips a lot of the article to speak almost exclusively about the church. This need to be a tight summary of the overall article. which leads me to the next major problem...
Can you give us specifics on what major portions of Smith's life the lede is skipping? Or portions of the lede that are excessive detail and can be removed? ...comments? ~ B F izz 02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
A quick look at the article shows that there are really two subjects being discussed. The man and his church. While the church IS a part of the man's life, and a major part, the artcile needs focus. What is the article about. The man or his church or both. If both, then perhaps, simply renaming the article would be appropriate.
He organized the church when he was 24, and died at 44, so nearly his entire adult life was deeply intertwined with the church. The article is about Smith, but it's virtually impossible to say anything about his adult life without talking about his church as well. The Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) and History of the Latter Day Saint movement are the main articles about his church. If you have any suggestions of information that we can leave out of this article and treat exclusively in those articles, please do tell. ...comments? ~ B F izz 02:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The article lacks focus and is far too broad in scope. Seperating the man from the church is not impossible and simply using information from other wikipedia articles as the basis for this article, while appropriate, is not enough. There is a great deal of information available and can be referenced and cited. http://www.google.com/search?q=Joseph+Smith+Jr.+the+man&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 -- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There are some reference, note, source and citation problems. This will take some time to go through. Bare with me please as I write up specifics. Thanks.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This is what I find in just the first 5 notes:
The following note seems to be somewhat promotional and has no context to either the USA today reference or the unsubstantiated claim in notes. Community of Christ (2009), General Denominational Information, http://www.cofchrist.org/news/GeneralInfo.asp#membership, retrieved December 17, 2009 (second largest Latter Day Saint movement denomination claiming approximately 250,000 members). This is only one denomination. This simply does not relate to either claims.
Substantiate the LDS figure and lose the Community of Christ note.
The claim must reflect the reference. It should say “The family knew poverty, but by the time of Joseph junior’s birth their circumstances had improved.” The reference needs to give the specific page which is 19.
The reference from Bushman is on page 21. We do not need the rest. JUST page 21. Either fix the reference OR expand the claim to reflect the information found in the other pages.
In reading the actual references against the prose I see clear OR and bias attempting to make the life sound worse than it really was.
Note 6 = I see no mention of the term "Second Great Awakening" in this reference. The use of the Peacock term "Hotbed" is unencyclopedic. The reference merely mentions "revivals" of such great regularity that the district became known as the "Burnt district". Yes, it is speaking of this period but did not do so outright. To use this as the reference to that statement is stretching. You would need the reference and source to say this in one way or another and it really doesnt.
References have a few problems as well:
Notes have some big problems with bias and OR. They do not seem to be completely following the source and in some instances are showing they simply do not support claims at all. This is a serious problem for a Wikipedia article, let alone for GA. Formating is just not to standard with overlinking, dead links and unreferenced claims. Not every note has such problems but clearly need a good deal of attention by a disinterested editor to go through line by line and make much needed editing.
References on the other hand are not as bad but contain similar problems that must be corrected. I really think the overlinking is really bad. It confuses the reader and makes navigating the sources very difficult. If you have wikilinked the notes and the references as a means of guiding the reader to specifc articles it doesn't help with a list this long right next to external links to to e-books, many of which do not go to the specific page were the reference would be found. If the external link does not go directly to the reference, why bother? It's not a conveniance.
I've deleted these tables from the main article and moved them here for discussion:
Leaders of the
Church of Christ, later called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints | |
---|---|
Founding president | Leader Claiming Succession Position in the Church of Christ Title & denomination Years |
Joseph Smith, Jr. (1830–1844) | |
Brigham Young was President of the Quorum of the Twelve President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1844–1877 | |
Joseph Smith III was Direct Descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.
President of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints later called the
Community of Christ | |
James Strang was an Elder with a Letter of appointment President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) 1844–1856 | |
Sidney Rigdon was senior surviving member of the First Presidency Guardian of the Church of Christ later called the Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion or Rigdonites 1844–1847 |
Personally, I don't think they add anything to the article. The succession information is better written as prose, and can be found in the "Succession Crisis" article. Also, there is no consistent series of boxes used by Nauvoo mayors, most of whom don't have Wikipedia pages. COGDEN 08:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, "Hotbed" is repeated now in the lede. I don't remember seeing it there before. Its a Peacock term. I am also seeing a repeated usage of terms and descriptions that make the article less reliable to the source. For the most part the writing is not bad. But the lede now contains the same phrase found in the "Early years" section. I had mentioned this only in the reference and note section as it pertained to the misuse of the reference...but now it needs to be addressed on it's own.
Another problem with the prose that I'll mention here intead of the reference and notes review section is the over abundence of notes breaking up the sentences throughout the article. It makes it very difficult to read. It is particularly bad from the sections, "Life in Ohio (1831–38))" up to the section "Death".
Example:
Mob attacks began in July 1833,[116] but Smith advised the Mormons to patiently bear them[117] until a fourth attack, which would permit vengeance to be taken.[118] This just does not seem necessary.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Amadscientist ( talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This artcle is long and detailed and will require a substantial amount of time. Editors please be patient. If it is determined that a hold is appropriate, it will begin once this reviewer has completed work.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:
Reviewer notes:
Images must comply with Manual of Style guidlines Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Image use policy: Each image has a corresponding description page. On that page, one should document the source, author and copyright status of the image, using one of the pre-defined image copyright tags. It is important to add both descriptive (who, what, when, where, why) and technical (equipment, software, etc.) information at the time of creating the page, which will be useful and highly informative to later editors and readers.
Whenever you upload an image, you should meet the following minimal requirements.
While many of the images are Public domain, their use on wikipedia in a GA article must have the proper information for consideration.
The following images have issues that need to be addressed to meet GA criteria:
*Joseph_Smith_first_vision_stained_glass.jpg = This image is owned by the Public Broadcasting sytem and it still retains the rights to this image. As stated in the terms of service: The Information available on PBS ONLINE® may include intellectual property that is protected under the copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws of the United States and/or other countries ("Intellectual Property Laws"). Such Intellectual Property Laws generally prohibit the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of all text, photographic and graphic (art and electronic) images, music, sound samplings and other protected materials. The violation of applicable Intellectual Property Laws may give rise to civil and/or criminal penalties.
While some two dimensional images are faithful reproductions Wikimedia commons states: When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects, hence the rule of thumb that "2D is OK, 3D is not". The work presented in the image is NOT a mere 2 dimensional work. Stained glass requires "choice of framing, lighting, and point of view" as using a simple flash at anytime of day or night would NOT produce the image you see as well as the fact that the work is meant to be viewed from multiple angles in the same way as a sculpture, which by definition stained glass is.
In short, the license is incorrect and the original source STILL claims copyright. This image cannot be used for GA (or Wiki at all for that matter).
. Although many materials such as stained glass and fabric possess some three-dimensional texture, at ordinary viewing distances this texture is essentially invisible. As long as the surface is not noticeably curved or tattered/broken, and the original work is old enough to have entered the public domain, it is considered a faithful reproduction of the original with no original contribution.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
06:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look at addressing the image copyright issues. If anyone else gets to it before me, then all the better. ...comments? ~ B F izz 20:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I emailed the Church History Museum, asking a few questions about the image. I might just take a trip to Salt Lake and photograph it myself. I've found various versions of this image online, but none under a permissible license:
I also found a similar work of art that we might consider photographing and uploading, if the original work is not copyrighted.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7156208@N02/412617797/in/photostream/
...comments? ~ B F izz 22:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
BFizz, I believe I have a handle on the infobox painting. I found the original source and author of the first image before upload. If all that was done was photoshop work to improve the image, than the information can be used.--
Amadscientist (
talk) 01:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not the same image. I will continue to research this one out. It would be a shame to lose it. Nice image.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The infobox image is easily replaced but I do intend to see if I can find the nicer version even after the review is closed. It's just a really nice image and if we can't find the original source we will have to replace with the original upload as that is from the Church archives online while the other one is not. I have found two sites that use this image but they are both message boards that mat well have taken the image from wiki. The others can simply be deleted from the article if they cannot be fixed with no loss of quality to the article itself, but work is underway to correct them by another editor.
Work this out guys. Seriously. The article just came off protection and when I began the review it seemed to be holding stable. It has lost that stability which endangers the review. One criteria for "Quick Fail" is stablity. At this point I am NOT giving up with a quick fail but if this can't be smoothed out, GA standards that might be worked out may simply be lost within hours or days if it passes GA nomination.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry. but that is simply incorrect. If the article is experiancing so many reverts that it is protected...it is unstable. The protection has been lifted and the constant reverts return. The review guidlines state "Edit warring, etc", so even though there are no real edit wars among the contributing editors, it is far from stable. I am talking about a single day. March 5th, were there was section blanking, vandalism, and simple disagreements on content and accuracy. The article is not stable. I am NOT quick failing over the issue for one reason...it wasn't so when I began. However, I am failing the stability portion of the review.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The lede has one major problem.....it has little to do with Smith himself and skips a lot of the article to speak almost exclusively about the church. This need to be a tight summary of the overall article. which leads me to the next major problem...
Can you give us specifics on what major portions of Smith's life the lede is skipping? Or portions of the lede that are excessive detail and can be removed? ...comments? ~ B F izz 02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
A quick look at the article shows that there are really two subjects being discussed. The man and his church. While the church IS a part of the man's life, and a major part, the artcile needs focus. What is the article about. The man or his church or both. If both, then perhaps, simply renaming the article would be appropriate.
He organized the church when he was 24, and died at 44, so nearly his entire adult life was deeply intertwined with the church. The article is about Smith, but it's virtually impossible to say anything about his adult life without talking about his church as well. The Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) and History of the Latter Day Saint movement are the main articles about his church. If you have any suggestions of information that we can leave out of this article and treat exclusively in those articles, please do tell. ...comments? ~ B F izz 02:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The article lacks focus and is far too broad in scope. Seperating the man from the church is not impossible and simply using information from other wikipedia articles as the basis for this article, while appropriate, is not enough. There is a great deal of information available and can be referenced and cited. http://www.google.com/search?q=Joseph+Smith+Jr.+the+man&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 -- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There are some reference, note, source and citation problems. This will take some time to go through. Bare with me please as I write up specifics. Thanks.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This is what I find in just the first 5 notes:
The following note seems to be somewhat promotional and has no context to either the USA today reference or the unsubstantiated claim in notes. Community of Christ (2009), General Denominational Information, http://www.cofchrist.org/news/GeneralInfo.asp#membership, retrieved December 17, 2009 (second largest Latter Day Saint movement denomination claiming approximately 250,000 members). This is only one denomination. This simply does not relate to either claims.
Substantiate the LDS figure and lose the Community of Christ note.
The claim must reflect the reference. It should say “The family knew poverty, but by the time of Joseph junior’s birth their circumstances had improved.” The reference needs to give the specific page which is 19.
The reference from Bushman is on page 21. We do not need the rest. JUST page 21. Either fix the reference OR expand the claim to reflect the information found in the other pages.
In reading the actual references against the prose I see clear OR and bias attempting to make the life sound worse than it really was.
Note 6 = I see no mention of the term "Second Great Awakening" in this reference. The use of the Peacock term "Hotbed" is unencyclopedic. The reference merely mentions "revivals" of such great regularity that the district became known as the "Burnt district". Yes, it is speaking of this period but did not do so outright. To use this as the reference to that statement is stretching. You would need the reference and source to say this in one way or another and it really doesnt.
References have a few problems as well:
Notes have some big problems with bias and OR. They do not seem to be completely following the source and in some instances are showing they simply do not support claims at all. This is a serious problem for a Wikipedia article, let alone for GA. Formating is just not to standard with overlinking, dead links and unreferenced claims. Not every note has such problems but clearly need a good deal of attention by a disinterested editor to go through line by line and make much needed editing.
References on the other hand are not as bad but contain similar problems that must be corrected. I really think the overlinking is really bad. It confuses the reader and makes navigating the sources very difficult. If you have wikilinked the notes and the references as a means of guiding the reader to specifc articles it doesn't help with a list this long right next to external links to to e-books, many of which do not go to the specific page were the reference would be found. If the external link does not go directly to the reference, why bother? It's not a conveniance.
I've deleted these tables from the main article and moved them here for discussion:
Leaders of the
Church of Christ, later called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints | |
---|---|
Founding president | Leader Claiming Succession Position in the Church of Christ Title & denomination Years |
Joseph Smith, Jr. (1830–1844) | |
Brigham Young was President of the Quorum of the Twelve President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1844–1877 | |
Joseph Smith III was Direct Descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.
President of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints later called the
Community of Christ | |
James Strang was an Elder with a Letter of appointment President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) 1844–1856 | |
Sidney Rigdon was senior surviving member of the First Presidency Guardian of the Church of Christ later called the Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion or Rigdonites 1844–1847 |
Personally, I don't think they add anything to the article. The succession information is better written as prose, and can be found in the "Succession Crisis" article. Also, there is no consistent series of boxes used by Nauvoo mayors, most of whom don't have Wikipedia pages. COGDEN 08:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, "Hotbed" is repeated now in the lede. I don't remember seeing it there before. Its a Peacock term. I am also seeing a repeated usage of terms and descriptions that make the article less reliable to the source. For the most part the writing is not bad. But the lede now contains the same phrase found in the "Early years" section. I had mentioned this only in the reference and note section as it pertained to the misuse of the reference...but now it needs to be addressed on it's own.
Another problem with the prose that I'll mention here intead of the reference and notes review section is the over abundence of notes breaking up the sentences throughout the article. It makes it very difficult to read. It is particularly bad from the sections, "Life in Ohio (1831–38))" up to the section "Death".
Example:
Mob attacks began in July 1833,[116] but Smith advised the Mormons to patiently bear them[117] until a fourth attack, which would permit vengeance to be taken.[118] This just does not seem necessary.