Talk:Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

I made a few minor edits. Please have a look. If you alter the edits, please be sure to maintain or improve the clarity of the content and include a citation if needed. Lemurbaby (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw you changed back "or, in the past, with Serbian noble Mihailo Anđelović or with Michael Shishman himself" without altering it. I made the edit because I didn't understand what exactly was meant. Would you please find another way to express that idea? Lemurbaby (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much for the review and the copyedit! I did alter the wording (from 'previously' to 'in the past'), but obviously it was still not easy to understand. What I mean is that these two identifications are not supported by modern researchers and are considered less credible than the other two. Hope that helps :) — Toдor Boжinov — 20:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this phrasing is a little less ambiguous. Thank you for the explanation. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

All church images in this article - on Wikimedia Commons, these images do not have an official authorization on file from the actual author of the content. Please either attempt to obtain this permission or use different photographs (sorry to be the bearer of bad news). Lemurbaby (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I do have the author's permission to use the images. I'm not sure what the procedure is to verify that, though. I got the permission not via e-mail, but using the host website's (http://www.snimka.bg) internal messaging system, so I can't really forward it to the Wikimedia Commons permissions people. Perhaps I should copy and paste my communication with the author in an e-mail and provide screenshots to verify the authenticity of the text? — Toдor Boжinov — 20:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I had to go through this process myself on an article I wrote. In my case as well, I had a conversation (on Facebook) to back up the claim but it's not enough per Wikimedia Commons guidelines. What's required is an actual email from that person, Stating that person is the creator of the image(s), listing the filenames, and explicitly stating that they release it under the requisite free license agreement. In other words, the text of the message should look like this: "I, (creator's name), release (list all the file names, exactly as the file names are displayed on Wikimedia Commons) under CC-BY-SA. (name, date)" Then once you receive that message back from the creator via email, you need to send it through the OTRS system. Complete instructions are found at Commons:OTRS. It can take a while for the images to be reviewed, so I won't hold up the GA as long as you've submitted the email and request. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very useful! I have just contacted the creator and I'm expecting them to confirm that they release the files under the listed license as soon as possible. I'll let you know when I forward this e-mail to the OTRS people :) — Toдor Boжinov — 13:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I hope s/he replies without too much delay. Best, Lemurbaby (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you had any luck getting authorization from the photos' creator? Lemurbaby (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

What's the status on this review? No comments in a month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• I regretfully cannot award GA at this time due to the delay in obtaining proper licensing for the photo, and subsequent lack of communication from the editor. The good news is, this article will be ready for GA as soon as the photo use has been approved per Wikipedia regulations. TodorBozhinov, I hope you'll re-nominate this one once you do get the official approval from the photo's creator. All the best, and thank you for your much needed contributions! - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. I was unable to contact the photographer and secure a permission in the required format, so I completely understand the decision. All the best to you too and thanks for closing the nomination! :) — Toдor Boжinov — 17:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually... I should have thought of this... Now that I've heard back from you, if you're willing to just remove the photo, it would pass GA. Just renominate it if that's what you'd like to do, and let me know. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 10:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• Only one request: now that you've removed the photos, would you please provide a stable, reliable link (with archived url in the template) to an outside site that has authorized images of the church? You could link to the site where you got the original photos, for example. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I've included a link to the gallery where I got the photos. How should I incorporate an archived version of that page though? An external link would not use a {{cite}} template so I can't really include it as a parameter on that one :) Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 19:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You could manually type in something like "Archived at Webcite on August 31, 2011" (substituting the actual archive url for the one I provided in the example here), or just use the archive url in place of the original url. Let me know when you come up with something you like. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm unable to archive the page properly :( It returns some error: [1]. — Toдor Boжinov — 08:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a try. I tried as well and encountered the same problem. Some links just won't archive. Well, we did our best. I'm going to give the article a pass as-is. Thanks again for writing on these topics. It's great to see Bulgarian monuments receive attention like this. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the patience with this nomination and the excellent review! It was a pleasure working with you :) — Toдor Boжinov — 11:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)