Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kerry slug/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:51, 3 November 2009 [1].

Kerry slug edit

Nominator(s): Snek01 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because 1) previous candidate discussion did last 10 days although it should "lasts two to three weeks". 2) Everything was going good and every requests were fulfilled. 3) I think, that the one who closed the discussion accidentally added "not promoted" instead of "promoted". Snek01 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no support in the first nomination—articles need both wide declared support and resolution of standing problems to pass. There was an Oppose that still stood in the first review, for example. Now, SandyGeorgia did say it could be re-nom'd "in a week or two"; you clearly have. Still, this nom should only continue after you've resolved (or explain why you shouldn't resolve) the remaining Oppose issues, and any other needed cleanup. If you've done so already, good luck! --an odd name 20:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As was the case with the first application for FA status, the rest of the members of Project Gastropods were not notified that the nominator was about to re-submit the article. I would have attempted to clean up the prose some more if I had known this was about to happen. As it was, it took me by surprise once again. Invertzoo (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: citation style is consistent. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The article was not at FA standard when Sandy archived, and there have been no subsequent edits. Although the article improved considerably at its previous FAC, the changes were largely made by Invertzoo, whereas the nominator tended to argue instead. I suggest that the nominator withdraws the article for two weeks, and works with other contributors (who seemed surprised by the first nom) to get this ready for FAC. This is potentially a good FAC, but the nominator needs to get advice and help to cross the remaining hurdles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you focus on constructive criticism, please? The fact, that nobody edited the article in last 18 days (since rash adding "not promoted") means, that NOBODY knows what else should be improved (if anything). Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I for one did not edit the article during the last 18 days had more to do with the fact that I had no idea what was going on, and thought perhaps the attempt at FA had been given up completely for the foreseeable future. It was not because I thought that nothing needed fixing. Invertzoo (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am prepared to do some work here and now, as long as they are things that I know how to do. Invertzoo (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geomalacus maculosus, please clarify why bolded in lead, this is not normal practice, can you give a link to an MoS or Gastropod project policy?

Scientific name is more important than common name. It is in bold in (nearly all) every 5000 gastropod articles. (Bold scientific name is compatible with bold name in taxobox and usually it is compatible with article name. It is a part of guideline, how to write gastropod articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Taxonomy.) --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An adult Kerry slug generally measures about don't need both "generally" and "about"

I changed this as suggested, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an arionid, which means it is a round-backed slug, and shares a lot of suggest It is an arionid, or round-backed slug, and shares many of

I changed this exactly as suggested, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kerry slug is in the genus Geomalacus, which literally means "earth mollusc" surely the name of which means... . I'd be inclined to start with The Kerry slug's binomial name is Geomalacus maculosus and explain the words' meanings afterwards.

OK, great, changed that as suggested, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the only species within the subgenus Geomalacus better to say there are two subgenera first, so we know where we are (especially as the genus and subgenus names are the same)

I change this around, hope it reads better now. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it has the same subgeneric name as the generic name, this means it is in the "nominate" subgenus, which means this slug is considered to be typical of the genus. I don't think that is what "nominate" means, please amend wording and give a wikilink to nominate

Took out the dubious wording and put in the wikilink, thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redundant And as there are no other species within the subgenus, that means there are no other species quite like this one. that's what species means, not subgenus

Took out the dubious phrase. Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Andrews - does he need a link?

No, probably not notable. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its specific name maculosus means spotted, from the Latin word macula "spot"., - fine, but shouldn't this be with the explanation of the genus name?

It's there now, thanks for the suggestion, Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Color variation Image caption - why suddenly American spelling?

Sorry that's an accidental oversight, that was probably me, I have live in the US for over 30 years. Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although you have glossed Taylor's "shagreened" and "trifasciate", might read better if just replaced.

Replaced them, and yes it does read better, thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The salivary and digestive glands are the same as they are in Arion species Which is? Meaningless as it stands.

I tried to make this read better but we could remove it completely if this is not sufficient. Invertzoo (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before the reproductive system is described This para could also benefit in places by replacing technical terms rather than glossing, eg the proximal (near) end, why not just near end?

OK, fixed the most obvious ones of these. I previously did a fair bit of work on this section in an attempt to make it less dense and impenetrable, but am reluctant to simplify too many pieces of terminology for fear of removing the correct scientific vocabulary which is very precise and accurate. Invertzoo (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mating of this species is described in Platts & Speight (1988). Could you describe it for us please?

This source is unavailable for editors of the article. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please check my edits

Very good. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As first time round, references are riddled with incorrect and inconsistent formatting, I'm disappointed that no effort has been made to fix this before returning to FAC

User:Fifelfoo wrote "consistent". Feel free to improve details by yourself or propose changes/improvements. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fifelfoo didn't write "correct". Fifelfoo (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes made so far. With respect to the references, I should point out that I did correct a good deal of the formatting last time around, but nothing further was doen my the nominator. The nominator had the opportunity to sort this before coming back to FAC, but chose not to do so. I am not prepared to put further effort into getting this article to FA if the nominator can't be bothered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved punctuations in references. Is there anything else what could be improved? --Snek01 (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent style for dates, page numbers etc, journals, reports and books all italicised, journal names spelt out, not abbreviated, check for nonsense like (file created 26 February 2008) 2008 9 pp.. Do the reports have authors, year for the reports like the books and journals. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates are corrected: these two additional years are deleted.
Page numbers are unified (one correction made).
Journals are/were italicized correctly.
Books are/were italicized correctly.
Reports are not italicized, which is correct.
Journal names are not abbreviated and will not be abbreviated.
Reports have no authors if they are them not written.
There is not possible to add accessdate in cite conference template for EUNIS.
All references provide as much as informations as possible. --Snek01 (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to change the citation style refs to cite style for consistency. You don't have to have a Further Reading section, but if you keep some or all of it, you need to format those too and expand abbreviations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snek, strong arguments have been made above that this article was not ready to be brought back to FAC, because previous issues haven't been addressed; unless other contributors (like Invertzoo) are prepared to move forward here, the FAC should be withdrawn until the work can be completed. FAC is overloaded, we have to avoid having it used as peer review, and if the Project members state that there are still issues and that it wasn't ready to be re-nommed, those issues should be worked off-FAC. Please consult with them and advise. I apologize for not responding to your e-mail, and understand that may be part of the confusion here, but I prefer that FAC business be kept public. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody is prepared to move forward here, of course. At least abide with rules stated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and not delist it too early (at least in this case it was not useful at all). You recommend "Please consult with them and advise." I have consulted with you asked if its time to nominate, but you did not responded at all. Thank you cooperation. --Snek01 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note about FAC transparency (and my apology for not responding to the e-mail) here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC instructions are clear that a nom should not be brought back until previous issues are resolved. Please have Invertzoo confirm if s/he is prepared to participate at this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) All previous things ARE resolved. 2) She (and me too) was very surprised that FAC ended (see my talk page). Nobody (although long time wikipedia editors) understands the reason, why was (unreasonably - according to my point of view) FAC ended. --Snek01 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nearly all of the images are incorrectly licensed. Copyright term of p.m.a. +70 years (i.e. {{PD-Old}}) is only the test for unpublished works. Published works have different criteria. As, per the sources, these are indeed published, alternative tagging is needed. {{PD-US}} would be appropriate for works published before 1.1.1923, as I believe all of them are. Эlcobbola _talk 15:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All tags are correct. They are tags from Wikimedia Commons. They are not tags from English wikipedia, as you have linked. All images have added death date of their authors. (And, by the way, they were not published in the USA.) Everything is OK with licensing of them and there are even no alternatives for tags for these images. --Snek01 (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snek01, ElCobbola is a Commons administrator and a very knowledgeable editor wrt image issues; if he suggests something needs to be resolved, it will be expedient to heed his advice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being an administrator is not an guarantee of information always. --Snek01 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons tags are in all ways germane identical (PD-US vs. {{PD-US}} and PD-Old vs. {{PD-Old}}); the en.wiki versions were linked only as an expedient way to demonstrate the difference. Please read my comment and the PD-US tags critically; the date of the author's death is irrelevant when the work has been published. The PD-US tag doesn't say it must have been published in the US. Эlcobbola _talk 16:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Images are in public domain, this means that LICENSE is OK on every image. 2) You probably wanted to say, that it could be also possible to add tag http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-1923 to the images also. I do not consider it necessary. There is nowhere written that such additional template is necessary and it is written nowhere in guidelines neither at Commons nor at English wikipedia. Theoretically maybe you will find such information somewhere and then add such additional template. --Snek01 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snek, everyone agrees that the images are in the public domain, but images have to be tagged with an explanation of why they're in the public domain. The tags currently say that they are in the public domain because their creator died at least seventy years ago, but that is not why they are in the public domain, because that rule applies to unpublished works. The reason these works are in the public domain is that they were published before 1923, and that's what the tags should say. Steve Smith (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my computer there is this text on image (for example File:Geomalacus maculosus 3.jpg) "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years." This IS the reason: "because its copyright has expired" explaining why they are in the public domain. There is nowhere in guideline written that additional tag is necessary (that would be useless). Is the same text on your computer also? --Snek01 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The problem is that the text is incorrect: it's not in the public domain because of the "life of the author plus 70 years" rule, it's in the public domain because of the pre-1923 publication rule. What is required isn't an additional copyright tag, but a different copyright tag, since the current one is incorrect. Steve Smith (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then improve TEXT of the template. After that I can decide to add a different tag, if it still will be needed. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template isn't wrong. That template is for unpublished works. These are published, so their term is based on publication, not life of the author. You're welcome to read Title 17 or this "Reader's Digest version". Эlcobbola _talk 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The text currently in there comes with that tag, because that tag is intended to be applied to works that are in the public domain by reason of the "life plus seventy" rule, which this one is not. The text on that tag is fine, it's just that that tag doesn't belong on these images. A different tag, with different text, is required here. I don't know how to be any clearer about this. Steve Smith (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have changed PD-old to the PD-old-70. Its OK now in this one image. --Snek01 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use {{PD-US}} instead, as {{PD-old-70}} still refers to the life plus seventy rule. Steve Smith (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Link to exact template to be sure what you mean. 2) Alternativelly you can link to a DIFF of your edit and then I will understand or I will explain you what was incorrect with your edit. --Snek01 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elcobbola did link to the exact template above: commons:Template:PD-US. Steve Smith (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not possible to add because the image is not U.S. work. (That is very annoying to gave such primitive advices to an administrator and to student lawyer). --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you're correct; the correct template is commons:Template:PD-1923. On another note, please do not strike out reviewers' comments unless they have confirmed that they are resolved. Steve Smith (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you will find a guideline which states that this additional template is necessary when there already is PD-old-70 template, then it can be added also. --Snek01 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest speedy archiving. Article does not currently meet 1a or 3, and nominator shows no willingness to acknowledge problems, let alone make any attempt to correct them. When FAC is backlogged, we can do without this. Steve Smith (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider, that images are tagged correctly. It was also checked in previous FAC. --Snek01 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snek, it has been explained to you ad nauseam why the image tags are not correct. I do not know what else to tell you. Steve Smith (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snek, US law on copyright expiration is very complicated. This flowchart was created by copyright lawyers to figure it out. Isn't the result of the first decision yes? If not, please apply the decisions in the flowchart to the images in the article and report the path by which you get to “Expires 70 years after author’s death.” —teb728 t c 04:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) As an example, suppose a work was published in 1925, the author died in 1935, and his heirs renewed the copyright in 1952. The path through the flowchart then is no, yes, yes, yes; so the copyright expires 95 years from publication in 2020—even though the author died 74 years ago. —teb728 t c 05:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your comment. I understand your point of view. I also understand comments and the same point of view of other participants. We together agree what the license of the file is. Then there is the task, what tag or tags will be the best. Files are hosted on Wikimedia Commons and primarily this should be resolved regardless of this FAC. Because if this FAC will be closed, then the problem will stay (from your point of view) unsolved. There are also many other possibilities how to solve this. No party did convinced other party yet. What do you suggest? --Snek01 (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending resolution of the criterion three concerns noted above. This is an easily remediable and unambiguous issue. Simply astounding is the senseless combativeness and failure to recognize an untenable position. Эlcobbola _talk 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note to Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Public_domain_templates . I hope that tags of images be solved soon, so we will be able focus on other points of improvements of the article. I would like to thank to all reviewers for their comments. I would like to especially thank to reviewer Jimfbleak and I will try to focus on improving references, although I do not know how yet. I would like to thank to Invertzoo for improving the style. --Snek01 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's note I am closing this nomination early because it is obvious that many of the problems that existed in the previous FAC have not been fixed. I strongly encourage the nominator to work closely with the significant contributors of this article, and engage the reviewers as necessary, to identify areas in which the article still needs to be improved. I will remove any further nominations that occur without work having been done on the article. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.