Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Odex's actions against file-sharing/1

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: No action, but recommend renomination. Geometry guy 21:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jappalang placed the nomination on hold, citing several issues with prose and images. All but two issues were addressed within the hold period. As two issues remained, the hold expired and the nomination was failed. After the hold expired, I addressed one of the issues (an unsourced sentence about Odex's income situation, which I removed). The other issue is the inclusion of a screenshot of the "Xedo Holocaust" animation. Although Jappalang believes that this screenshot should not be in the article, Mailer diablo (the primary contributor, who has since left Wikipedia) and I think otherwise (see the discussion on the talk page for more details). Should the screenshot be included? Hopefully this discussion will allow us to come to a consensus. J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GAR may not be the best way to address this dispute: I suggest you consider WP:RfC. That said, my view is that Jappalang's appeal to WP:OR#Original images is invalid, and the case against including these images is weak (at best). The image in question is not original: it was published by a third party and has been referred to by a secondary source. It is not original research to include it. As far as I can tell, the remaining argument against the image is that it violates WP:NPOV, more specifically, WP:UNDUE. However, this is a reaction section, and it is entirely reasonable to include a cross-section of responses to the Odex actions. The essential point, is that the article should not support or endorse the view of the cartoon, but should describe it and attribute it. The article could be better phrased to make it entirely clear that the cartoon represents a viewpoint, and should also describe the response to the cartoon, as supported by the sources. (If the cartoon were not freely licensed, such analysis would be essential for fair use.)

I've made a small step in this direction by moving the cartoon from the top of the section to the paragraph where it is discussed. This makes it less prominant by setting it in context. Geometry guy 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see a difference in the article's GA candidacy/status with or without the image. Therefore I propose we grant GA status. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist at GAN - The issues were addressed after the hold expired. The content dispute is an RfC matter, not one for GAR. Lara❤Love 05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist at GAN per above. Drewcifer (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No action. I suggest the article is renominated at GAN per above, but there is no action to be taken at this GAR. Geometry guy 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]