Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Castle/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Images[edit]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • Nothing has been done on this one. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking, as this has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add the date and author, if known, of the tapestry. Once that is included, I can fix the license (which is incorrect - clearly a medieval tapestry could not have been licensed under CC-by-SA in the middle ages!). Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking, as this image has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Fortezza di Sarzana.jpg - The uploader and the author don't appear to be the same person. The uploader needs to be able to release the copyright (which belongs to the author). Can you contact the uploader and see what the situation is?
  • Striking, as this image has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Malbork zamek zblizenie.jpg - Please remove the watermark from the photo. I'm confused by the source - it says "pl.wiki" - does this mean that the it was user generated by User:Topory?
  • Striking, as this image has been removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Trebuchet.jpg - The uploader and the author are not the same person. Please contact the author and make sure that he has released the rights to this photo. He can indicate as much on the image description page, for example.

I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this, although I think most have been fixed. Regarding File:Fortezza di Sarzana.jpg, Lapo Luchini (who is attributed as the author) edits infrequently and as far as I can see hasn't edited since October. The confusion arises because Elya transferred the file across to commons, but I should think the license was kept the same. I'm not sure what to do about the drawing of Krak des Chevaliers as I don't have the book it came from and was taking the source on good faith. I could replace it with another image of Krak des Chevaliers (there are several on commons) if it's still a problem. Nev1 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's all the issues addressed. The two images that haven't yet been sorted (the old drawing and the one with the watermark) have been replaced. As for File:Fortezza di Sarzana.jpg, I just noticed that the edit summary of the person who transferred the file from the Italian Wikipedia to Commons was "(* Castle (Fortezza Firmafede) of Sarzana, Italy * author: it:Utente:LapoLuchini * date: 2002-08-07 {{GFDL}} Category:Cities_in_Italy)", which I assume means it was under a GDFL license there so should be fine on Commons. Nev1 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issues regarding the uploader/author questions is not about the license precisely - it is whether the person who is claiming to release the rights through the license has the right to do so. When the uploader and the author are the same, we know that the uploader has the right to release the rights. However, I'm not seeing in the documentation here that the author ever uploaded the image (even to another wiki). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see a record of the uploader being the author (I might just be blind from looking at too many images, though). If the author and uploader are different, the author needs to give explicit permission, either by signing the page or going through OTRS. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please link any new images that have been added to the article here so that I don't have to go searching for them - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trebuchet image has been "signed" by the author, this can be made more prominent if necessary. I have replaced File:Carcassonne(France)4.JL.jpg with File:France cite de carcassonne chateau comtal2.jpg; the other two new images are File:Crac des chevaliers syria.jpeg and File:Marienburg 2004 Panorama.jpg. I've also added the date to the Bayeux Tapestry image (author unknown and probably multiple, the date is uncertain but probably 11th century). I think looking for the author of the Fortezza image may be a dead end as they're probably not around now, so I'll look for an alternative image. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the Fortezza image with File:Copertino.jpg. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:France cite de carcassonne chateau comtal2.jpg - Please add an English description to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Copertino.jpg - The description does not indicate the original source of the image. I presume it was taken by the uploader, but we need verification of this from the uploader. The history of the file, which might have clarified this, is unreadable, unfortunately. Also, please add an English description to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Copertino image did specify that Istvánka was the author (and therefore source), and it was Istvánka who uploaded the image to commons so that should be ok, but I've made it more obvious that Istvánka was the source. Both images now have descriptions in English. Nev1 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to where it says that s/he is the author of the image? I only see where it says s/he is the uploader (which is not always the same thing). Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just below the source row, the author row says "Author: Original uploader was Istvánka at hu.wikipedia"; I thought that was Istvánka claiming to have been the source of the picture. I've left a note on Istvánka's user page to ask for confirmation as the wording is slightly ambiguous. Nev1 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Istvánka left an explanation on my talk page: "The original of the picture can be found on the italian wikipedia here. It was originally uploaded by it:utente:Galiano.M. I wanted to use the image on the Hungarian wikipedia so I uploaded there too, and then, when we moved all pictures to commons the original description got lost. Anyway, I have changed the description in commons"[1]. The description on the Italian Wikipedia is that it's Galiano's personal picture, but since they're not around they won't be able to leave a note confirming it on the commons page. The alternative is finding another photo, would this be preferable? Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Galiano.M uploaded the picture to the Italian wiki saying it was his/her own photo, we are now fine. I have added more to the Commons description to make this clear. Thanks for your work on these images - I am striking my oppose. If any new images are added to the article, please list them here and I'll check them over. Just drop me a note on my talk page. Awadewit (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text[edit]

  • Comment. Alt text done. Alt text is present (thanks), and the images look great. but there are a few problems with proper names. Alt text should ordinarily be verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the images (see WP:ALT#Verifiability), and most non-experts won't be able to look at these images and verify the proper names in the alt text. For example File:Alcazar de Segovia.JPG has alt text saying that it's a Spanish castle, but a naive reader can't see from the image that it's Spanish. Please remove or move-to-captions the following phrases in the alt text, which have veriability problems: "Spanish", "English", "Tower of London", "Thames", "Traitor's Gate", "Windsor Castle". Also, please fix the capitalizations and spellings of "A Square" and "crennelations". Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply With regard to the alt texts, this has been a matter of discussion. Because the alt text is normally read before the caption, it needs to give the clearest possible picture to a blind listener. Saying "A large castle seen from a river rising above a gateway" (and then a caption saying "The Tower of London" is simply not as revealing as saying "The Tower of London seen from the Thames River". Likewise saying "picture of a man with a beard wearing a black jacket and white shirt, looking left" is not as revealing as saying "picture of Charles Dickens wearing a black jacket and a white shirt" or "picture of Sadaam Hussein wearing a black jacket and a white shirt". In an alt description, the place or person needs to be immediately identified so that the blind person knows exactly what the object is, in order to relate to the description. Neither must we presume that the blind person has never had sight, or that they are ignorant. The description "Spanish castle" conjours up a different image to the description "English castle". This may not be true for ever listener, but it will certainly be the case for some. Amandajm (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous comment underestimates the intelligence of visually impaired readers. Just as sighted readers don't need text at the top of an image saying "TOWER OF LONDON", but can deal with seeing the image first and then the caption later, visually impaired readers are used to listening to alt text first and captions later. One of their major annoyances is repetition, and the strategy of saying "Tower of London" in the alt text and "Tower of London" in the caption hinders accessibility far more than any relatively-minor clarity rendered by saying it twice. (See WP:ALT#Repetition for more on this.)
  • Dickens, Saddam, the Tower of London, and Windsor Castle are arguably iconic enough to be recognizable to most readers, and thus not to need description (as per WP:ALT#Proper names, which gives Big Ben and Napoleon as other examples of icons), so I've struck those from my comment.
  • However, the other proper names in this article's alt text presume too much from a typical Wikipedia reader. It's OK to respect the readers, but it's not OK to confuse them. The vast majority of readers won't know Traitor's Gate from a hole in the wall. I'm particularly mystified as to why the phrase "Traitor's Gate" would appear only in alt text, where most readers can't see it: if this info is important enough to tell visually impaired readers, it's important enough to tell the rest of us; and once that's done, then as per WP:ALT#Repetition this info shouldn't be in the alt text.
  • I'm dubious that a typical reader (visually impaired or not) will know what a English or Spanish castle looks like, as opposed to a castle in some other country; I don't think that one Wikipedia reader in a hundred could reliably tell castle nationality from these images. I suppose an expert in castles could tell, but please try to pretend that you're not an expert when deciding what should go into alt text.
Eubulides (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No further comment, so I fixed the alt text along the lines I suggested. Eubulides (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sorting that out, I got distracted from addressing this myself. Nev1 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Castle/archive1&oldid=329367193"