Talk:Bohemond II of Antioch/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 14:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I am going to be taking a look at reviewing this article for GA. I hope to have a full review up for you by tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll be using the above table for my review, expect to find my comments on the article within the boxes that relate to the issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

, I am more or less finished with reviewing this article for the time being. Excellent work so far, this article is very close to GA. I have this page on my watchlist so feel free to notify me if you need anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your comprehensive and thorough review and comments. I highly appreciate your work. I fixed the reference to Houben's book, because it contained a wrong page. Sorry, I do not understand your remark about Britannica. Do you say it is not a reliable source for WP purposes? I deleted the image about the coin, because I am not an expert in the field of US copyright law, so I an unable to determine whether it is protected by laws in the USA. Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , That is correct, Britannica is not a reliable source for WP purposes. I can take a look at the image and see if I can find a license tag for it, but believe me, I go to others for copyright law myself. I have taken a look at the image with the help of Nikkimaria and have concluded that the image of the coin is copyrighted, unfortunate as that is, it is what it is. The other images are still fine. On the topic of this review, the only task left is to find a replacement source for Encyclopaedia Britannica and then this article can be passed for GA. Btw, it seems I forgot to ping you when I made my initial comment, so, re-ping. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your comment. I think Britannica is regarded as a reliable source for WP purposes, because it is a peer reviewed work, published by a renowned publishing house. Why do you think Britannica does not meet all criteria of WP:reliable source? Borsoka (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've taken a look at WP:RSN and found that there's disagreement between editors on this point, and that majority opinion finds that EB is fine for use on the Wiki as a tertiary source. In light of that, and as EB is not under extensive use on this article, I'm happy to leave it be. As such, this article has officially passed the GA review. Excellent work and thank you for your responsiveness. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , sorry to be bothering you again in such a short while but I have another image question. There was an image on the article of a 1000 year old coin that hasn't got any explicit copyright information, I'm wondering, because I've seen this come a few times, when you take an image of an ancient coin, is it protected by copyright? I ask because I've read that it is not, but, I've also read that it is. The image in question is . Mr rnddude (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See Commons:Currency. Coins are three-dimensional objects, so there are two copyrights to consider: the coin itself, and the photo of the coin. For the purposes of currency, the date of issue is taken as the "publication" date, so an ancient coin is well out of copyright now. The question in this case is, what is the copyright status of the photo? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, it's tagged with a bogus PD-70 designation, the coin itself is well outside of PD-70 and PD-100 but the image was uploaded in 2006 as part of an auction. US copyright law as I understand it does not require the creator to request copyright and is immediately covered by copyright at the time of creating it. In other words, the author must release the copyright for it to be PD or CC, they haven't done so on their page so assume that they haven't done it at all. The source is only accessible via the wayback machine. I think the image will need removing from Wikimedia Commons altogether. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The PD-70 designation is technically correct for the coin - whoever the creator was, they certainly died over 70 years ago! But yes, unless there is more information available about the photo the image will likely need to be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)