Talk:Christine Nagel

WikiProject Women in Green 20-Minute Article Assessment
Hi Innisfree987, hope life is good, I'll put some comments below concerning the 6 GA criteria ... Mujinga (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

 * some phrases eg "who also grew up to work in perfume" sounds a bit convoluted, is this a translation?
 * I'm finding some of the phrasing a bit puffy and as they add up not so encyclopedic, for example: "discovered her true love", "she became enchanted", "Nagel's bona fides were established", "but reserves a special place for path-breaking female perfumer"
 * Syntax is occasionally jarring eg a sentence which is all brackets - "(Nagel also created 46 other scents for Jo Malone,[8] including the more conventional bestseller English Pear & Freesia in 2010.)", and typos eg "archival leather in Paris,."
 * Hard to avoid, but the awards section reads a bit listy right now since it goes In 2005 / In 2007 / In 2015.
 * Also not a fan of one sentence paragraphs and would also suggest adding to or merging the two sentence personal life section
 * Fragrance Foundation France linked in lead not in body
 * Per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, the block quote is a bit short to be a block quote
 * "Nagel says" - prob best to say where she said it, or to whom
 * link tuberose?

Images

 * Images are relevant and appropriate
 * File:Christine Nagel.jpg is all good
 * File:Narciso Rodriguez for Her Eau de Parfum.jpg I'm not totally convinced it's ok to screen capture an image of a trademarked product from a youtube blogger .. not my area of expertise, it would be great to have pictures of the perfumes, but I'm dubious about this one. Same goes for File:Miss Dior Chérie bottle.jpg which could be another option

Verifiable

 * Baidawi is giving a "CS1 maint: url-status (link)" error
 * the prize is indeed Most Daring Fragrance for Women in the source, could also add its original title: Prix de l’Audace
 * In 2007, Nagal won the Prix François Coty (then briefly retitled the Cosmetic Valley's International Fragrance Prize, but since returned to its original name). - what's in brackets is not verified by source

Stable

 * Yup

Neutral

 * Slight concern over puffy language as noted above

Broadness

 * If the sources don't say anything about her herself then there's not much to be done, but I'd certainly ask for a bit more about her as a person if this was at GAR

So overall I think this would need a bit of work during a GAR but then would get there fine. If you wanted to, perhaps these comments would be helpful to go through before submitting - I feel like I've been quite blunt I hope that's ok, it's a consequence of reviewing at speed. Thanks Innisfree987 for another interesting article and best of luck with it if you take it to GA (please do)! Mujinga (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your feedback @Mujinga, always so great to have your input! I’ll plan to work on addressing these to submit to GAR! Innisfree987 (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * One question, do you have someone you would recommend we ask about the bottle images? Similar images of perfume bottles been on Main Page several times as lead images at DYK and the regulars and admins there have never raised an issue, but maybe there’s someone you think might know better? Innisfree987 (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The devil would be in the details, but if similar images have passed DYK scrutiny then I'd hope these bottle images would be ok. Off the top of my head Nikkimaria is someone who does a lot of image reviews at FAC, so you could ask them. With File:Narciso Rodriguez for Her Eau de Parfum.jpg I can def see a fair use argument for putting it on Narciso Rodriguez for Her to illustrate the article, not so sure about using it here. The youtube video is licensed Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed) as you put, and it's waiting for a commons reviewer/admin to assess its license there. Specifically for FAC on EN at least it would need a PD-US rationale per this recent discussion. That's about as far as I could say, since I'm not sure who the relevant copyright holder is in this case between the perfume maker, the youtuber and you as uploader to commons. Mujinga (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh dear I’m afraid that discussion was led seriously astray: it’s not true (at all!) that all images on the Commons need PD-US status. PD-US is just one of many legitimate licenses for the Commons: it means that an image has no copyright restrictions whatsoever. But some restrictions are compatible with use on the Commons and thus other WMF sites, like several Creative Commons licenses. For instance it’s very common to use screenshots of CC-licensed YouTube videos as here. And I also licensed my screenshot with a compatible CC license.
 * The only possible issue I could think of in this case is if something within the image is protected; however per guidance on logos and bottles, I think these are acceptable as there are no copyrightable designs on the bottle (like an image of the product it contains), only logos and the bottle that don’t rise to that level in my best understanding.
 * Incidentally the review pending isn’t an obligatory Commons process; I generally add the request to my uploads in case the original source later changes the license or disappears completely. If it’s been verified as compatibly licensed then it remains compatible and won’t have to be deleted. As you can tell tho the backlog is enormous. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah: on a more practical level, here is a couple of other screenshots of perfume bottles from YT videos, that have made it through the reviewing queue and been approved. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks those other images are helpful to compare and you've def done due diligence on this. I didn't mean the commons review was obligatory I just meant that it would give a view one way or the other so the other images being approved helps your rationale. I'm still not 100% convinced on this since I find the COM:PACKAGING guidance can be read in different ways, but I all I wanted to do was flag it up as a potential issue. On the side issue of the FA review not being correct that's illuminating :) Best of luck with the article! Mujinga (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)