Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scrooge McDuck/archive1
Scrooge McDuck edit
Incredibly comprehensive article, detailing history of the character in real life and fiction terms. Arniep 20:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, it's quite comprehensive. While I see that it has references at the bottom, the article's nomination would be aided by using inline references throughout. —thames 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Object. A Carl Barks picture is "fair use"? No no. I don't think so. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- is this artist's work any more exempt from fair use than any other 2D artwork? Arniep 22:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, what I mean to say is that like many other images used in our articles, it has a dubious, uninformative fair use tag, with no reason given why the use of it should be considered fair, see image description page. Most of these images would probably never make any trouble for Wikipedia (though they're still not approved for Featured Articles, plus they're being deleted by decree from Jimbo Wales as we speak), but I believe one connected with Disney is quite likely to. Disney has a reputation for defending copyright very proactively, not to say aggressively. I'm no expert, though—the copyright of Barks' work may not belong to Disney anymore. I should think it would be actively defended in any case. To put it another way: what makes you think we can use this image? Bishonen | talk 23:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would cite the standard fair use principles, (i) the image is accompanied by critical commentary, (ii) is of resolution too low for print reproduction, and (iii) Wikipedia's use of the image in this context in an article on the subject of the artwork is unlikely to damage Disney's profits or reputation. Arniep 23:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- What critical commentary? The image isn't dated, no provenance or context is given for it, thus none of the article's commentary on Scrooge's changing appearance and personality relates to it. Moreover, the article is appropriately encyclopedic, which means it does not exactly discuss Bark's work "critically". I remain concerned. Bishonen | talk 00:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Surely you are interpreting critical commentary slightly too literally? I don't think the commentary necessarily has to cricitise the artistic style, it just has to be commentary directly related to the work i.e. a cartoon character. Admittedly no source is given, which is a problem but it is pretty certain it would have been published by Disney, in fact in the bottom right corner it says copyright Walt Disney. Arniep 15:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have added the source, it is from the cover of Walt Disney's Uncle Scrooge McDuck: His life & times by Carl Barks, published 1981 by Celestial Arts, ISBN: 0890872902. Arniep 15:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- What critical commentary? The image isn't dated, no provenance or context is given for it, thus none of the article's commentary on Scrooge's changing appearance and personality relates to it. Moreover, the article is appropriately encyclopedic, which means it does not exactly discuss Bark's work "critically". I remain concerned. Bishonen | talk 00:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would cite the standard fair use principles, (i) the image is accompanied by critical commentary, (ii) is of resolution too low for print reproduction, and (iii) Wikipedia's use of the image in this context in an article on the subject of the artwork is unlikely to damage Disney's profits or reputation. Arniep 23:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, what I mean to say is that like many other images used in our articles, it has a dubious, uninformative fair use tag, with no reason given why the use of it should be considered fair, see image description page. Most of these images would probably never make any trouble for Wikipedia (though they're still not approved for Featured Articles, plus they're being deleted by decree from Jimbo Wales as we speak), but I believe one connected with Disney is quite likely to. Disney has a reputation for defending copyright very proactively, not to say aggressively. I'm no expert, though—the copyright of Barks' work may not belong to Disney anymore. I should think it would be actively defended in any case. To put it another way: what makes you think we can use this image? Bishonen | talk 23:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- is this artist's work any more exempt from fair use than any other 2D artwork? Arniep 22:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Wow! Who would have thought there would be so much to write about an imaginary duck? :) Brisvegas 07:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Support since I'm a huge fan of Scrooge, Donald and co. The page isn't "100%"...igordebraga ≠ 21:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Lacks references. See WP:CITE. The "External links" used as references need to be called out into their own section, and the text, through footnotes, Harvard-style referencing, or other means, should direct you to which reference supplies facts and quotes found in the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Object, per Bunchofgrapes. Also, the lead is a bit short. --Spangineer 04:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Object as per Bunchofgrapes and Spangineer. The article needs both references and inline citations to aid verifiability. Saravask 06:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)