Talk:Bobby Driscoll/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 01:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Will start the review shortly! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * References
 * There is something very wrong with the references - unless its my browser or something. Of the ones I checkes:
 * ref 2 has no content
 * ref 3 has no content
 * ref 4 has no content
 * ref 5 has no content
 * ref 6 has no content
 * ref 7 has no content
 * ref 8 has no content
 * ref 9 needs formating
 * ref 11 has no content
 * ref 12 - a fan site
 * ref 13 has no content
 * ref 14 has no content
 * ref 16 has no content
 * ref 19 has no content
 * ref 20 has no content
 * ref 21 has no content
 * ref 23 bad link - also not formatted correctly
 * ref 24 fan site
 * ref 26 has no content
 * ref 27 has no content
 * ref 29 has no content
 * ref 30 has no content
 * [please check the rest - as I went no further except for ref 65 below]
 * ref 65 is 404
 * Hi MathewTownsend
 * At first: thanks a lot for reviewing this article -- so fast.
 * Your browser is fine, the broken links are because the references, linked in the article, once had been scanned and put on a website on Bobby Driscoll, which I ran from 2007- ca. mid-2009. But basically due to tightened and stricter copyright laws in Germany (I am from Germany), back then, I deleted the entire website. But the sources are still reliable (mainstream press etc.) - please read the comment (and my reply) just one above - Most of the original press-material I took from the newspaper-archive of anchestry.com.
 * Now we have two options: either you suspend reviewing the aricle, giving me the time to re-upload the material on a neutral (and unlisted) website, in order to re-create the references/sources, or I temporarily withdraw the GA-assessment, with the same purpose. Frankly, I didn't expect the review this fast, since I read in the rules, that it can take some weeks until someone would find the time. But it would be very nice, anyway, if you could tell me your opinion, so I can concurrently revise the points in question. I guess, I was a bit too fast with my request for assessing the article. I'm really sorry for this inconvenience.
 * Best regards --Bylot (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mind waiting, if you need time. I believe a nomination can't be withdrawn once a review is opened but must be failed. Either option is ok with me. Leaving it open a while is not a problem.
 * But you can't upload copies of newspaper articles to a site, as that is violating the newspaper's copyright. You can provide the correct reference to each newspaper article without a link (eg author, date, newspaper, etc.), much like providing a citation to a book where there is no link, just the info needed to find that info in the book, page no. etc. The article and info on Bobby Driscoll is really interesting and I'd like to see this become a GA. I'm willing to help you any way I can. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your patience and assistance.
 * My idea was also, to add light copyright-watermarks on the scans, needed, to credit the sources "properly" and prevent the press-material of possible misuse
 * But if it's enough to simply put the links into informational references (since the basic data are mostly provided there, already), as I understand your suggestion, I think, it will not take longer than a week. Best wishes and greetings --Bylot (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply
 * Here's an example of citing a newspaper article without a link
 * Frankenstein, Alfred (June 9, 1940). "Diverse Attractions at the Golden Gate Fair". The New York Times.
 * This is from Timothy L. Pflueger - MathewTownsend (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Failed. None of the missing references have been fixed. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)