Talk:Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica/GA1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Lemurbaby in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- 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)
- You're welcome! I hope s/he replies without too much delay. Best, Lemurbaby (talk) 18:18, 11 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
editWhat'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)
- 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)