Talk:Perl/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ankit Maity 08:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Mostly clear, but with possible improvements as pointed below.

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

   Not too enamored with the mass of links for See also

Why did you change this item from a pass to a question mark? You wrote below that there is some issue with layout, but the sections appear to be ordered according to WP:LAYOUT. Feezo (Talk) 09:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I thought that it needs some improvements on images and lists to make it compact. Thanks.--Ankit Maity 11:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you be specific? What images and lists need to be improved to make it more compact? Feezo (Talk) 02:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: (more pictures neeeded)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: (NO)

Just a note, only three of the nine programming language GAs have more than one image apiece, and several of them have no images. I've added File:Camelia.svg to illustrate the Perl 6 section. Unfortunately the site containing the license text is currently unavailable. I'm looking for an alternative place that gives the license. If we can't find an official record of the license, I believe we can still use it under fair use. Feezo (Talk) 23:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Found the license and updated File:Camelia.svg to reflect it. I've also uploaded and added File:Onion 64x64.png. There are now three images, all with a valid license or fair use rationale. Feezo (Talk) 01:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Feezo,

I got the license name:{CC BY-NC-ND 3.0}. It was on the Perl organization website. Thanks.--Ankit Maity 03:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What image are you talking about? File:Camelia.svg uses Artistic License 2.0, and the other two are fair use. Feezo (Talk) 09:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you're talking about File:Pl-perl.png, which claims to be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, that appears to be a copyright violation since the image came from http://w3techs.com/diagram/history_technology/pl-perl and I can find no such license grant on that website. Feezo (Talk) 10:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Feezo, read the user terms of use of the website:

User-provided Content

With regard to content you make available in any publicly accessible areas of this web site, you hereby grant Q-Success the worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, translate, display, create derivative works from, and publish such content on or in connection with W3Techs.com or other sites. It is your responsibility to ensure that content you make available is meant for public display, which excludes adult or mature content and links to sites with adult or mature content. It is also your responsibility to ensure that content you make available does not violate copyrights held by third parties, and that making that content available on the web does not violate any local, national or international law. You acknowledge that Q-Success in its sole discretion may choose not to display any content you make available or to remove content you make available from its servers without notice.

Hope you understand. Thanks.--Ankit Maity 11:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question: 1) are you a representative of Q-Success? or, 2) did you create the image? If (1), then the passage you quoted may be relevant. If (2), you are obviously free to choose any license you want. But, since it appears on a website that does not specify the license, you need to follow the OTRS procedure. Feezo (Talk) 11:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Feezo,

Yes, I am a member of their website and for a complete solution I have sent a e-mail to them regarding the problem. Thanks.--Ankit Maity 12:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Things are still unclear. You uploaded File:Pl-perl.png under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0, then quoted a long passage regarding user-submitted content, the crux of which is that Q-Success is granted a "non-exclusive license" to do various things with submitted works, but does not claim the right to relicense them. Therefore unless you are the author of the image or obtain permission from the author, the image is a copyright violation. In summary:

• Did you personally create the image at http://w3techs.com/diagram/history_technology/pl-perl?

• If so, did you follow the steps at Commons:OTRS to release it under the stated license?

• If you did not personally create the image, then until the author takes the steps at Commons:OTRS to license it, the image remains a copyright violation and may be deleted. Even if the license is granted, you must properly attribute the author at Commons:File:Pl-perl.png, which currently lists it as yourself. Feezo (Talk) 02:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Please add some pictures to make the article illusrated. There is only 1 picture in the whole article that also the logo. Please add some more pictures that covers the statistics, usage, advantage, disadvantage, etc. of the software. Thanks. Hoping to get reply from you soon.--Ankit Maity 08:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are now four images, which, I believe, comprise all images directly relating to Perl that are described in the article. Images such as a timeline may be decorative, but are not essential. Since the end of the GA review period is approaching, please comment. Feezo (Talk) 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I created a (I'll go ahead and say it, but-ugly) timeline, in lieu of the quest for more pictures. For your horror, use, and remixing, I present:

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

SORRY, PICTURE TOO BIG. and see my new review that the MoS[only layout] should be improved. Thanks.--Ankit Maity 03:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

WHAT? SPEAK UP SONNY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU. Kidding aside, since it's an svg, it can be resized to whatever size without loss of precission. Making the bar vertical would probably be nicer, but Dia doesn't roll that way, unfortunately. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I passed it to GA status.Ankit Maity 08:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)