Talk:Russian anti-LGBT law/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jujutsuan (talk · contribs) 09:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

This article does not pass at present.

• It fails WP:LEAD § WP:BEGIN: This is an easy article to make the boldface title reiteration match the title, but this article does not.
• It fails WP:GA? #2: at least one ref link is broken.
• It fails WP:NPOV, referring to a group of "radical Orthodox Christians", repeating in Wikipedia's voice the source's POV, which was given without substantiation. The source itself, published by Autonomous Nonprofit Organization, appears to be Russian state-controlled media outlet (in a state generally hostile to Xianity, no less!) and therefore less than reliable for this sort of statement.
• The claims of "my own work" on the image licenses appear dubious. Someone with more experience, please check those out.
• Otherwise, it's well written, appears to be generally accurate, seems free of OR, is broad in coverage, focused, and stable, and uses images with appropriate captions.

I'd like to see these issues resolved within a 7-day timeframe per common practice. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 09:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that the lead violates WP:BEGIN. "Russian LGBT propaganda law" is a descriptive term, as the actual name of the law is way too long to be a functional article title. ("However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text."). Also, which links are broken? If there's a way to summon the link archival bot. You've also refused to disclose which images have potential issues. Per Commons policy, the burden of proof is on the uploader. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

What I meant about the lead is that the title is "Russian LGBT propaganda law", and the lead has "gay propaganda law" as an "also known as" in bold, but for some reason doesn't have "LGBT propaganda law". So either "(Russian) LGBT propaganda law" should be added or the article should be moved to Russian gay propaganda law. The broken ref I noticed is (currently) #47, after "...creating a public disturbance." Someone should go through and make sure that's the only one. I'm not familiar with the link archiver bot—can you summon it? I haven't "refused to disclose" anything. All of them claim a "my own work" license rationale, and I feel that's rather dubious given the photo content (especially the close-ups). I've made a good-faith request for an editor more experienced with image licensing to check those out. I don't have "proof", and I never claimed to have any. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 15:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If you read the descriptions of the images on Commons, you'll notice that some of the "close-ups" are actually crops from larger images. Additionally, on the subject of article titling; I did not want to use "anti-gay law" or "gay propaganda law" as the title proper because the law itself does not use the term "gay", but a euphemism. The terms "anti-gay law" and "gay propaganda law" are associated with the Western reporting on the law, thus making it a violation of the neutral point of view. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Is the current title the WP:COMMONNAME? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. I hate to have to do this, but I may actually have to change the name of the article to "Russian gay propaganda law" in order to comply. I hate to have to succumb to western bias on such a topic, but it's the only way to comply with titling guidelines. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That's unfortunately the messy result of humanity having multiple languages—different languages often name things differently, and it tends to be regionalized. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 15:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

While we're dealing with NPOV concerns, the term "anti-gay" is used throughout. I think that saying there are protesters at a gay pride parade gets the point across without using such a loaded, disputed term. I'll work that out. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 15:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I did the page move and now Legobot is telling me that it "failed" GA? ViperSnake151  Talk  03:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm fairly new with the GA system, but perhaps it should be un-moved and removed after the review is over? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 04:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: Nope. Don't do that. It "failed" the old title but listed the new one, and moved the GA review page. No worries, just a technicality. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 04:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ViperSnake151, the problem was that when you moved the article and its talk page, you didn't also move this review page. So the bot lost track of the review, since it was still under the old article name, and got confused the next time it ran. I've just now moved the GA1 page to the new article name; while the bot message can't be recalled, the article talk page has "healed" since it can once again find the review page, and the GA nominations page will catch up in another 15 minutes or so. Note: do *not* move anything back at the present time; it will just break more things. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, how is "simply" POV "in context"? I'm meaning "simply" as in, in comparison to the longer terms, some media outlets call it only "the anti-gay law" ViperSnake151  Talk  15:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Because it implies, or could appear to imply, that the law does in fact boil down to simply being "anti-gay", an unnecessarily loaded term/concept that should be avoided in the article as much as possible except where absolutely necessary, such as in reporting an alternate name for the law widely used in media. The "simply" doesn't add any meaning here; it's obvious to the reader that it's the shortest/"simplest" name. So since it's not necessary and, "in context", it could inadvertently amplify POV, the "simply" should be omitted. (Does that make sense, or should I try to rephrase my explanation?) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe the removal of the quotation marks around "anti-gay law" in lead is appropriate. It is, in fact, non-neutral, as it implies that we are calling it that, when in reality, we are only saying that other sources are calling it that. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Already covered by the way it was introduced: "also known in English-language media as..." That makes it quite clear that WP is not endorsing the name. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 16:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: Before any more time goes by, who's waiting on whom? Are you finished making edits, or should I hold off on re-checking the article against the WP:GA? criteria? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You may continue. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

This article has improved significantly from my first review, but it still does not pass 6a. I'm placing it on hold again. Only 2 of the files indicate that they are crops of other images, but even in those cases there is no attribution to the original. In all cases, as I said before, the claim to being the uploaders' own work seems dubious given the type of photos they are. I'm going to go to the reference desk and see if anyone there with more media experience can help out. Pinging ViperSnake151. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Editor note: I shall take a look at the images later.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jo-Jo. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, here we go:

1. File:Emblem of the State Duma of the Russian Federation.png: This seems fine to me, license wise.
2. File:Elena Mizulina.jpg: Seems fine as well. The uploader has an upload history consistent with that of a professional photographer in Russia, give or take several camera model changes as evidenced by the EXIF. I don't see any higher resolution versions of the file online and those which are of the same resolution all postdate the upload to Commons.
3. File:Russian Embassy in Helsinki, LGBT pavement.jpg: I wonder if the coloured stripes of the LGBT flag on the pavement could be considered copyrightable artwork, in which case permission would be needed - may ask on commons:COM:VPC. Freedom of panorama checks out. Lack of EXIF data is odd, but not per se proof of copyvio, and no complaints of copyvio either. Otherwise, I don't see any higher resolution versions of the file online and those which are of the same resolution all postdate the upload to Commons.
4. File:Emma Green Daegu 2011 crop.jpg is derived from File:Emma Green Daegu 2011.jpg, as stated in the information. No EXIF data, OTRS permission is there which I generally am inclined to trust - editor who added it is a verified OTRS member. The license of the crop is improper - cropping an image does not create a new copyright that could be licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0 or claimed as own work, the copyright of the prior version (OTRS verified GFDL attributed to Erik van Leeuwen) applies instead. Needs fixing thus, and the files should be tagged as commons:Template:Derived from and commons:Template:Derivative versions. Otherwise, I don't see any higher resolution versions of the file online and those which are of the same resolution all postdate the upload to Commons.
5. File:Moa hjelmer (cropped).JPG is derived from File:Moa hjelmer.JPG, as stated in the information. No EXIF data, no complaints of copyvio. Only upload by the uploader. Otherwise, I don't see any higher resolution versions of the file online and those which are of the same resolution all postdate the upload to Commons. Probably on the safe side.

This all for copyright status, authenticity or pertinence are not part of my review.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus Regarding each image:

1. Good.
2. Good.
3. The response I got at commons:COM:VPC was that it's most likely fine.
4. Is it fixed now? I'm not at all familiar with Commons and copyright issues; I think I did what you said needed to be done, but I'm not sure if I got it right. EDIT: Good (see below).
5. Good.

• Seems mended now, the file #4.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

In that case...

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

... Congratulations ViperSnake151, this passes! Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)