Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/GA4

Reviewer: Cirt (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Image review
Cirt (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg - This sort of thing "only use on Wikipedia" is not really appropriate. Please go through WP:OTRS and try to get the author to confirm free use permission, perhaps under a suitable license such as "Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike". Also more helpful info at commons:Commons:OTRS.
 * File:FSM Logo.svg - image at Wikimedia Commons, looks good.
 * File:FSM Logo on bumper.JPG - asserted at image page as both "public domain" and "fair use"? This should be fixed, and either moved to Wikimedia Commons and free use permission confirmed with WP:OTRS, or not - or maybe just removed from the article and deleted. (Removed) Mnation2 (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:FSM Pirates.png - This seems like something as well where the author could be contacted to release the image under a free use license. Replaced. Mnation2 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Fsm book.jpg - Fair use rationale provided on image page, looks okay.
 * File:Fremont Fair 2009 pre-parade 28.jpg - - image at Wikimedia Commons, looks good.

Alright, I'll work on this in the next few days. I do have some questions:

1.) On the first image, File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg, this (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_permission_to_use) documents that the original painting has no copyright and is free to use. So, the "only use on Wiki" factor stems from Bobby Henderson, the holder of the (copyrighted) picture of the not copyrighted painting, correct? He is the one I should e-mail?

2.) Digging through this image (File:FSM Pirates.png) revealed that the graph had been replotted by a Wikipedia user to improve the image quality (I don't believe they licensed or formatted it appropriately for this however). As it only depicts and does not use the image, doesn't this void it of copyright requirements? And how can it be properly licensed to reflect this?

Thanks, Mnation2 (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes.
 * 2) I would contact the uploader for further information and release on that particular version. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Both Henderson and the uploader of the second photo have been contacted. I am awaiting responses. Mnation2 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any updates on the above? Cirt (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not. Mnation2 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering whether we really need Henderson's permission to use the first image. The painting is fully displayed on the original author's (Niklas Jansson) website, http://www.itchstudios.com/psg/other/fsm.jpg, with no reference to Henderson. Along with the statement "pretty much free to use for press and such as far as I'm concerned" (http://www.itchstudios.com/psg/), we already have Jansson saying "there's obviously no copyright for the original painting" documented on Commons.(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_permission_to_use)Mnation2 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We really need that confirmed via commons:commons:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I've replaced the other problematic image. Mnation2 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried emailing Jannson, the artist of (File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg) and got this:

"I'm not sure if the artist Niklas Jansson used to have this same email address, but currently you are speaking with wrong Niklas Jansson ;). If this email address is listed on some wiki page I would appreciate if it would be removed, because this is not the first time I have been asked about that picture."
 * So I've noted on both the image description on wiki and on commons that this is no longer the artist's e-mail. Mnation2 (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that whole "permission" thing should be deleted entirely, and the image not used until the actual author can be contacted and confirmed by WP:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Mnation2 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The original art and email of the artist can be obtained from his website here. I believe that his email at gmail is according to the image, 'diglett'. (I'm being a bit coy about the email address because he is also, and I think he may not want it posted on websites where spiders can scrape it.) But, come one, it's a GA review. We're not talking about FA (and even then, some FA use fair-use images). An image where the author has explicitly stated that it's free to use, should be perfectly usable in a GA article. LK (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Possibly_unfree_files/2009_November_2. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe we have consensus there that the image is ok to use with a 'fair-use' justification. LK (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But "fair use" does not mean it is okay to add an unconfirmed statement of "free use" at the image page. This is wholly inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 23, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * Could use copyediting throughout. I would suggest posting requests to WP:GOCE, and to the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects - for some previously uninvolved eyes to do some editing.
 * Lede is too short. Could use some expansion to fully summarize the entire article and be sufficient as a stand-alone summary, per WP:LEAD.
 * 2. Factually accurate?:


 * Duly cited throughout.
 * However, please reformat all citations using WP:CIT, inserting relevant information in the fields.
 * MakeRef can help with this.
 * I reformatted all citations that needed it. Mnation2 (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. Broad in coverage?:


 * Lots of short, one-sentence paragraphs throughout the article. This is partially a copyediting issue, but I would like to see these paragraphs expanded upon with material from additional sources. Particularly subsections Origins, Holiday, and The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 * Missing - Subsection called something like Commentary or Analysis would be appropriate here. Has there been criticism of this phenomenon/movement? Praise? Analysis in scholarly sources or other media commentary?
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pending addition of a Commentary or Analysis subsection.
 * 5. Article stability? Seems to be pretty stable, no ongoing conflicts.
 * 6. Images?: See above.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I'll be working on it. Mnation2 (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please respond to further points below here, and not interspersed above. Cirt (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that I have eliminated all one sentence paragraphs. Mnation2 (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the lede long enough now? If not, what else should be included? Mnation2 (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the request to WP:GOCE, I have spent about 2 hours running a full copy edit on the page. I feel the article was fairly good already, but did have some components that needed to be addressed. I feel its writing is now pretty solid. Feel free to respond either here or on my talk page if there are any comments or concerns. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Mnation2 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The use of the FSM as a general reference to satire and parody. Blairius (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Other uses
 * Comment: I see at the talkpg of Mnation2 that the copyeditor still has some unresolved concerns? Cirt (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are questions of mine to the copyeditor (not the other way around). Mnation2 (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are in fact questions to me, not from me, and I will be addressing those concerns directly, and indirectly addressing others shortly. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the concerns in question. Pending a double-check by anyone, I think the grammar/structure is pretty solid. Naturally, I have not been doing content checks. I have merely been doing copy editing. I cannot vouch for anything beyond that. (NB: That's not to say the article has poor content, just that I do not have the expertise to judge the content, only the structure and grammar.) --Mpdelbuono (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is really a nice article but I am still getting the sense that there is a lot more to be said about this topic. For example, critique and reception from the depictions of Flying_Spaghetti_Monster - expanded to pargraph form instead of the unprofessional looking bulletted list. Flying_Spaghetti_Monster - this section looks unseemly with all the over-usage of blockquoting instead of selectively working choice quotes into paragraph format. There has just got to be a ton more commentary and analysis to greatly expand upon sections Holiday, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, As a cultural phenomena, and Use in other religious disputes. Again I get the feeling from going over this that there is a lot more to be said, a lot more sources to be used, a lot more research to be done, a lot more room for expansion (which is a good thing, a fuller comprehensive presentation would really be great) :) Cirt (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment
 * That comment got me closer to a panic attack than I've ever been. If promoting this article to GA status is conditional on "a lot more ... said, a lot more sources used, a lot more research done, a lot more expansion", then GA will have to wait. In the past week, this article has been expanded by more than 30%. I'm spent, my holiday is over, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster will have to wait. :P Mnation2 (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, um, wow. Totally unprovoked bad faith response there. I am suggesting ways to improve this article. If you are going to choose to respond like that, that does not foster a positive collaborative environment. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry as per your talk page. Mnation2 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If there is an intention for more ongoing work I can allow some more time. Cirt (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good article preliminary requirement
The Narizny citation looked a little suspicious to me so I went and looked it up. You can see from this link that this paper has not been published. It is a BA thesis for an undergraduate religious studies department. Because of this, it does not meet the WP:RS requirements. Now, it looks to me to be a well-written and accurate document, but it will have to be published to qualify for Good Article standards of sourcing. Shii (tock) 10:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case I ask that it be replaced with better sourcing, else the article will fail GA guidelines. That being said, what's the status on the review? Work's definitely being done on it but I can't tell how far it is, and it's been at GAN a long time. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 04:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Pass
I see a significant amount of improvements from when the article was initially nominated for GA this time round. Excellent work. :) Cirt (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)