Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sealand/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sealand

I think this is an excellent article and is fully eligible for featured status. No further reasons! -Elrith, 11.8.05

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Sealand-coa.jpg is clamed as "fair use". In that case, the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use need to be followed.
  2. The images Image:Sealand prince.jpeg and Image:Sealand fortress.jpg are under a license of "used with permission". This is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.

  --Carnildo 03:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - this is still listed for peer review. WegianWarrior 07:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The peer review has been archived. --Allen3 ^talk 12:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

In that cause, support WegianWarrior 04:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I think it looks good. I don't know much about copyright questions so I can't weigh in on that. So support. Also, does anyone remember the revert wars that got fought over this article well over a year ago? I'm struggling to remember what that was about, but I seem to have forgotten. Everyking 12:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support yep its good, odd bit could do with a slight copyedit but nothing major. --PopUpPirate 17:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Support not every image can be a free image, because often they are about elusive subjects. They went out of their way to get the images authorized to wikipedia use, there is no reason to oppose them, unless Carnildo you want to pay for a flight out to Sealand to get pics? PPGMD 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• That's not the point. They can change it to 'copyright-freeuse-permitted' which is acceptable. Whoever secured the permission should request a change in licence. User:Nichalp/sg 19:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

And if they choose not to? The article is worthy of FA status IMO, being nit picky over images particularly ones that would be extremely hard to reproduce (along the lines of $400-500 to produce in high quality if the photog is local) is doing Wikipedia a disservice. I generally come to Wikipedia because it's complete, but it's more and more becoming less about completeness instead free is taking precedence. PPGMD 21:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't deny that the article is a worthy candidate, but has anyone emailed them explaining the new licence criteria, and the possibility that the images may be deleted? I'd secured a lot of cc-nc images but after Jimbo Wales declared them unacceptable, I'd requested the owners for a change in licence. All were happy to release it under the "CFUP" tag, as long as the source and photographer are fully acknowledged. The images in question are not high resolution images. If they disagree that's a another issue, but I'm more optimistic that they will agree to a new licence. User:Nichalp/sg 05:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Support This is definatly worthy of FA status. I'd never even heard of sealand before I came across it, and I found it to be very interesting and well written. Richy 14:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral – will support only if the current inline reference style is formatted using the footnote style. I'd also like the licence issue to be resolved. User:Nichalp/sg 19:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• object difficult to verify since few of the facts are linked to sources. Inline references of some kind (e.g. inote or Wikipedia:Footnote3) would help. The images are a problem since a key aim of Wikipedia is a freely redistributable encyclopedia. If there is no "fair use" claim they should be removed. Mozzerati 19:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Any uncomplicated statement of fact would at most require an {{inote}} and it is certainly not required according to the FA criteria. Please do not add visible footnotes for any variety of uncontroversial facts. Try to limit them when there's a need to explain something fairly complicated that would be disruptive if inluded in the text.. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object citations are neccessary, in my opinion, if this article is to become featured. Preferably using the ref/note convention. (Edited after Raul's comment). Cedars 00:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, no, it's not. The ref/note citation style is one of many it can use. →Raul654 19:24, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • True, but previous articles have recieved objections for using the inote convention. See here. Any convention may be fine, but the ref/note convention seems to be the prevailing method, so I would strongly recommend using that. Cedars 07:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • If you're talking about the quite recent footnote fad, it's nothing more than that; a fad. I have myself been doing plenty of objecting and explaining as to why footnotes are entirely inappropriate when overused for referencing uncontroversial and uncomplicated facts. For the most part an {{inote}} is the way to go or simply none at all. Visible footnotes should not be placed in an article merely because one of our editors doesn't know where to look up the population of Finland. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • The ability for readers to quickly verify facts is important especially for Wikipedia where anyone can edit articles. The peace of mind I get from being able to quickly cross-check facts is invaluable and I therefore believe visible inline citations are an essential part of a feature article. It would appear I'm not alone (see the bullet point on accuracy). Despite your claims, this fad also seems to be quite prevelant in academic papers. Cedars 12:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
          • The relevant quote here is appropriate use of inline citations. To begin with "inline citation" is not synonymous to "footnote" in any sense of the word. Mostly it's about simply stating the source in the text akin to this: (Jane Doe, 2005) or simply "Jane Doe in her book The State of Things in the State of Nowhere, writes...". And while it is true that academic papers use footnotes, Wikipedia is not in the business of producing academic papers, but rather encyclopedic articles. Furthermore, if you ask academics with any decent experience of using footnotes, which usually includes both PhD candidates and even lowly college students with some experience, they'll tell you the same thing; using footnotes for stating basic irrefutable facts is not appropriate. It's considered disruptive to texts and is generally done only by people who only recently have learned about footnotes. The overwhelming majority of our readers do not check facts, would not do so even if we provided them with footnotes and are not used to nor expecting to find academic-style texts in an encyclopedia. With the exception of providing a literature list and external links to references, which are very reasonable demands of verifiability, the editors of Wikipedia are the ones who should be assuring the factual accuracy of our articles. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't object to using bracketed citations if the author feels that they are appropriate. What I do object to is hiding citations inside the article where no-one but editors can view them. How do you know many readers do not check the facts of their articles? If I see something that seems hard to believe, I check the facts. I never stated that footnotes should be used to check every fact, though clearly there are some who believe that, and I object to your implication that I did. But this article is on an obscure and esoteric subject - it, more than other articles, needs to be well backed-up by references. The History section in particular could do with better citations. The fact is Wikipedia is unique, in that it is not paper-based and easily editable - it needs to be more careful than most about making sure its facts are verifiable and its articles can afford a few minor symbols on the page (e.g. ^[1]) if it results in a better, more dependable article. Cedars 00:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Question. This article it seems was peer reviewed for one day (actually less than 12 hours). Does this short exposure allow the claim and use of the {{oldpeerreview}} template? hydnjo talk 20:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)