Talk:Extra Texture (Read All About It)/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:ExtraTextureCover.jpg
Image:ExtraTextureCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This quality rating needs a rethink
Seriously, how can this article be rated a C on any project's quality scale? A message from March 2011 calls for verifiable sources needed for the article, yet (aside from refs supporting the reviewer ratings) there are almost none in the article at all. This can't possibly be a C − it's a Start, surely. Can someone please amend this rating (if you agree)? Either that or I'll find out how to do it myself. I've queried the same with the Red Rose Speedway article, because it just seems that medium-level quality ratings can be/are given too arbitrarily in some cases. I'll happily try to help make this George H article a C (and beyond, who knows), but I can't see there's any incentive to improve articles if contribs tack on a rating that's more wishful thinking. (How many other Beatles-related articles does this issue relate to ...?) JG66 (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll change it. Again, thanks for spotting this. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 13:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work, Yeepsi! Don't mean to sound so bossy about this issue. It's just that, it's very satisfying to help take an article from a stub or start level up to a C or B, but that ends up meaning nothing when a piece that's obviously below-average has been given a decent (C or B) rating. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. The Assessment department was in state, before I started helping. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 11:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)