Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosa Parks

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rosa Parks[edit]

50th anniversary of Rosa Parks' bus protest coming up on December 1.

Lotsofissues 00:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support. I don't have the time to read this article in depth at the moment, so I can't say if all picky things are in order, for example, picture tags, grammar, copyediting, and the like. However, the actual content is worthy of the honor of being featured. If consensus is that all small things are in order, then I must support. RyanGerbil10 01:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • .. So your vote is essentially "support, as long as the article's good enough"? Isn't that a tad redundant? ;D -Silence 01:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A small stylistic issue is that I don't like pictures being aligned left, but prefer thumbs down the right instead. If this is changed, and no other problems pop up, I'll support this important and wonderfully written article wholeheartedly. Harro5 08:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. Good work, but please expand the lead to atleast two paras. Also, align all the images to the right side, so the flow is maintained. --Pamri • Talk 16:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree that moving all images to the right would improve the article. Just the opposite; I think it would make the article seem much more crowded and unbalanced. There are some articles where I agree that predominantly right-aligned images are better, but this is not one of them. It also seems strange to me to base one's support on a loose, stylistic issue rather than on one of the FA criteria, but maybe I just haven't seen that practice before. -Silence 20:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also strongly disgree with moving the images to the right. It would make the article look so heavy to the right and would constitute as a graphic design faux pas. Staggering the images helps to balance the flow of the eye. I realize Wikipedia isn't a design piece per se but the rules of design apply if it helps information design to ease flow for the article. --speedoflight 09:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, on a few points that should be easy to address:
  1. Notes in the text should have corresponding notes in the reference list, there is also a mix of notes using ref/note and plain html link in the text- all the notes should have full citiations in the notes list.
  2. I have tried to verify that a number of images are actually in the public domain- the link on Image:Rosaparks.jpg doesn't work, so it can't be checked. This image Image:Rosaparks bus.jpg is not a work of the US government and needs a full fair use rationale provided. Image:Rparksmug1.jpg should also have a fair use rationale provided given that the status of the image is unknown, I have a feeling that the same should be done for all the scanned police documents unless they can be shown to be in the public domain.
  3. The lead is too short, the lead should summarise the content of the article.
  1. I can't see any reason why the large text section of text from her Presidential Medal of Freedom Award Ceremony is included- move it to wikisource/wikiquote and include a short excerpt in the awards and honours section.--nixie 23:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arr, I really didn't want to have to get too involved in this article, but there seems to be remarkably little interest in actually putting in the work needed to get it Featured. I've moved most of the text from the quotes-heavy section to the Talk page, where it can be transferred to sister projects if appropriate. I've also put Fair Use Rationales on the two items you identified as not necessarily being in the public domain, Image:Rparksmug1.jpg and Image:Rosaparks bus.jpg. For most of the other images on Rosa Parks, I advise that someone contact User:Speedoflight, since that user is the one who uploaded almost all of them to Wikipedia.
  • Most of the images featured for the article are available on US govt sites. They have reproduction numbers, etc. Does that not constitute work that has been released to the public domain for reproduction and hence, no need for a fair use blurb? --speedoflight 09:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original Rosa Parks on the bus image for the article wasn't uploaded by me (speedoflight). But because it was such a poor quality jpg, that I decided to go find a better version of it. I found a copy of it on the Library of Congress site. And this is the caption from the LOC site:
United Press photo. Location of Original: New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection.
Library of Congress Digital ID: cph 3c11235 Source: b&w film copy neg. Reproduction Number: LC-USZ62-111235 (b&w film copy neg.) [Rights status not known.] http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/083_afr.html#ParksR
Given that there is a reproduction number associated with its rights unknown and that the image is now in the LOC collection, I think it is safe to say it has been released to the public domain. --speedoflight 09:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the lead; it may look a little short, but I think it does do an effective job of summarizing Parks' life, considering that she is almost entirely known for a singular incident. Any more text feels like it would just be filler, and while I could make filler, it wouldn't seem right for an intro, which is usually supposed to be as short as possible while conveying the necessary information. If anyone else wants to give a try at bulking up the intro, feel free; I divided it into two paragraphs are requested above, though if they're too short to stand on their own feel free to re-merge them. -Silence 02:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finished standardizing the Notes and putting them all in order. Surprisingly tricky. So, all that's left now is possibly expanding the intro a tad, discussing the right-align issue, and verifying whether all the "U.S. Federal Government" photos are all really public domain, eh? -Silence 03:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can click on the US Fed Govt images with links and you can see that they indeed are listed either with the Library of Congress or the US Archives. They have reproduction numbers associated to them. They have been released to the public domain. Not need to put a fair use blurb with these. --speedoflight 09:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro does not need to be expanded. Her importance is succinctly distilled. Going any further would inevitably create a too glowing for an encyclopedia intro. It's now an images issue. Lotsofissues 03:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, someone who agrees. So, yeah, let's find out about those images. -Silence 03:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my comments in the paragraph above. Click on the links associated with the images in their caption. When I downloaded them from the LOC or US Archives, I was careful about copying their source links for precisely this reason (people asking about their status). Those that have been stored in the LOC or US Archives have repro numbers and are considered works owned by the US Gov, therefore, there is no need for a fair use blurb. I did not upload the mugshot image. I thought it was an image owned by the LOC but turns out that it may not be. --speedoflight 09:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please point out the rational that all works stored in the LOC or US Archives with a reproduction number are works of the US government. The description of that image clearly lists the original photo as residing at a newspaper (who would own the copyright to it). --Martyman-(talk) 21:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that that the brevity of the lead downwplays the significant contribution she made to the civil rights movement- she did more than get on a bus- and the lead should mention that. At the very least it should mention why the Montgomery Bus Boycott was a significant event. See Wikipedia:Lead section.--nixie 03:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't Montgomery Bus Boycott be the article that mentions in any detail why the Montgomery Bus Boycott was a significant event? And the opening does already say that she had a huge impact on the civil rights movement and on American history, and properly attributes this to stemming originally from her bus protest and the fact that the Montgomery Bus Boycotts used her arrest as a uniting symbol. I don't see a major problem here.... Though again, if anyone else wants to try their hand at improving the opening, be my guest... -Silence 04:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've expanded the information on the Montgomery Bus Boycott in the intro paragraphs quite a bit, hopefully satisfying the three requests on this page to expand the intro. Also, two of the images on the page have been removed by Speedoflight; presumably Speedoflight did so in reaction to reading this page, and those are the two that weren't public domain. So, does that satisfy your objections yet, Petaholmes? -Silence 01:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silence, I did not remove that portrait image of her that is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosaparks_1964.jpg. I feel it should be featured under the later years section. I have inserted it back to the later years section where it should belong. It is an LOC image, released into the public domain. It can lend some weight to the article to give people a different perspective of Rosa Parks other than ones of her being arrested, etc. I have scoured the archives of the LOC and the US Archives sites and have found no childhood image of her in the public domain. The 1964 portrait, the 1955 portrait, the finger prints, police report, bus diagram are images in the govt archives. If you click and read the caption, you will see the source links. I was very careful about capturing their reproduction numbers, source links, exact caption as listed by their sources. --speedoflight | talk to me 11:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding Image:Rosaparks_1964.jpg, is it automatic to assume a photo listed at the LOC taken by the associated press of unknown copyright is a work of the US government? Wouldn't the copyright reside with the photographer who took the photo? The LOC page here seems to back up mty argument. Also what is with Image:Rosa Louise McCauley Parks in 1979.jpg? It is of terrible quality and blown up way past the resolution limits of the camera it was taken with. --Martyman-(talk) 21:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support, provided that User:Silence, after his excellent upgrades are finished, comes to support the FAC himself. Also, Petaholmes/nixie's points of objection must be first addressed. I trust Silence's voting judgment. I've actually read the text thoroughly and did do copyediting a while back (before this FAC), and found the prose exceptionally clear and well organized. I see that more references have been added as well. One minor suggestion (which can be safely ignored at Silence's discretion) is that perhaps a "Impact on popular culture" or suchlike section be spun off from one or more of the currect sections (especially "Awards and honors"). Otherwise, I'll offer more constructive comments here as I think of them. Good luck. Saravask 02:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. My upgrades are pretty much done for now, I've copyedited the article and addressed the above problems. The main issue seems to be the mysterious origin and copyedit status of some of the images now. If there are specific images which there are problems with confirming the status of, maybe we should simply remove those and put them on the article's talk page until their origin can be confirmed? Once that's cleared up, I'll gladly support; my only other concerns are with whether the article is as expansive and thorough as possible (your popular culture category, for example, and also more details on her life and reactions to her civil disobedience), and whether there are enough print references for this article (it seems to have been constructed almost entirely from newspaper articles, which may be reliable but often ignore interesting details), but that's more of a problem to address in the long-term than an immediate concern, and shouldn't get in the way of FAing a very nice article. -Silence 03:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The improvements are great, but the images still need to be dealt with, appearing in a US govenment library/archive does not make a work PD, anything of unknown copyright that presumably is not old enough to be in the PD needs {{Non-free fair use in}} and a fair use rationale. Image:Rosaparks.jpg still doesn't even have a working source URL--nixie 22:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Replaced "public domain" tag with "Non-free fair use in" tag (and rationale) for Image:Rosaparks.jpg and Image:Rosaparks 1964.jpg, until those images can be shown to truly be in the public domain, at which point the "public domain" tag can be put on them. Anything else? -Silence 22:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your diligence, support--nixie 00:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Image dilemma seems to have been resolved. -Silence 00:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rosa_Parks&oldid=869866356"