Talk:Louise Nevelson Plaza/GA1

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

Reviewer: SusunW (talk · contribs) I'll look at this one. Note, I am a fairly slow reviewer and meticulous. I will likely add comments that are not part of the GA review but which I think will improve the article. Please feel free to contest anything, I am no expert on public art, and I view the review process as a conversation and collaboration to improve articles. 15:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @SusunW Thank you very much for taking this on! No rush on my end, so please take your time. I am looking forward to working together.  Ppt91    talk   16:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Photos
Caveat, I am no photograph expert, although I have a lot of experience with researching them. I reserve the right to "phone a friend"...
 * Lede image: Although the angle of the sculptures is different, it does appear that these were installed before the 14 April 1977 dedication, not copyrighted per the 1976 Artworks or 1977 Artworks catalogs, and were uploaded with cc licensing on the photograph.
 * happy to replace per my note below; waiting for SusunW to confirm if they're okay with that solution for the infobox
 * The lede image is fine and doesn't need to be replaced unless you just want to. SusunW (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Lunar Landscape: How do we know it was installed on 1 January 1959 and not copyrighted? Freedom of panorama for art installations says “any public artwork installed before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (unless the copyright owner actively prevented anyone from copying or photographing the work until 1978)”. Artworks catalogs from 1959 and 1960 confirm no copyright filed, if that is instead the date of creation, but how do we know that is correct either?
 * @SusunW I was a bit worried about the copyright aspects with this one, although it looks like Amon Carter classifies the work as "public domain": https://www.cartermuseum.org/collection/lunar-landscape-19993a-j Should we change the attribution for the image to public domain? This would solve the problem.  Ppt91    talk   19:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I realized the attribution is "public domain" already, so I apologize about the confusion. What I mean is that we can potentially include the link to the museum website in image description to clarify no copyright is needed.
 * I am confident that the 1959-1960 date refers to the sculpture's creation date based on the link you gave, and others and per my search of the copyright catalogs the sculpture wasn't copyrighted when it was created. But the criteria for panorama says it is based on installation, so the question is when was it first shown? The 1999.3 format makes me think that it wasn't acquired by the Amon Carter Museum before 1999, so where was it first displayed? My thought is that if we cannot prove installation occurred before 1978, then it has be clear under life of author +70. There are tons of pieces called "Lunar Landscape" by a whole bunch of different artists, so trying to figure it out isn't simple. Honestly it's very confusing. SusunW (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's try another way, this has a photo of another piece. The photograph was published in Art Magazine in 1970 without a photographer credited and says the sculpture was created in 1969 and shown at the Whitney, so we know it was shown before 1978. Nevelson did not copyright the work per the 1969 Artwork catalog. The catalog for 1970 Periodicals shows that volume 45 #1 was copyrighted as B623289. That copyright would have lasted 28 years and needed to be renewed. I find no renewals for the registration number. I think if you could figure out how to brighten the photo, it clearly ticks all the boxes to be in the public domain. Not copyrighted by the sculptor, not copyrighted by the photographer, copyright not renewed on the publishers publishing of the photograph, and displayed before 1978. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Nevelson and Koch appears to have adequate non-free use rationale. ✅
 * Shadows and Flags appears to have adequate non-free use rationale. ✅
 * 2021 with police booth, appears fine, same comments as lede photo
 * happy to remove if you think that's a safer route to take
 * 3 images in the gallery appear to have incorrect licensing. While I agree that the sculptures themselves were installed in 1977 and without copyright per the lede rationale, the photograph taken by is copyrighted and was taken on 5 May 2023. Unless they release their rights, these three photos are not usable, IMO. SusunW (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @SusunW, when I uploaded the photos I took at the Louise Nevelson Plaza, I released my rights and did not copyright them. Where do you see on the image files that I had copyrighted them? If there is something I should change on the image file pages I'll do that. I took them specifically as a favor to the article creator, whose work here on WP I very much admire. Good luck to all with the GA review, and happy holidays! Netherzone (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, happy holidays to you as well. Perhaps I am mistaken, as I don't work typically with images of public art, but both of the others taken by Beyond my Ken and jim.henderson have a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike International" license, which I take to be the release of the photograph license since they are clearly not the creators of the sculpture. Possibly both licenses need to appear? One to show the sculpture is not copyrighted and one to show the photograph is not? I honestly don't know and am happy to ask. Maybe , my go-to photo guy is around? SusunW (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Aren't photos like this of public art work permissible under "freedom of panorama"? Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , yes permissible, just trying to make sure we have the correct licensing to show that both the sculpture and photograph (works of two different entities) are not copyrighted. SusunW (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I found the confusion with the licensing. I had originally uploaded the images on a "self|cc-by-sa-4.0" license to release my photo, but another editor replaced that with a "int:license-header" (for images made between 1926-1977) to release the sculpture. Perhaps both of the licenses should be on the image files? Netherzone (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for taking a closer look at this. @Netherzone Your note was very kind (ditto re admiring one's work!) and I am glad we can have these wonderful pictures for the article. @SusunW Assuming there are no outstanding issues, I'd be happy to use one of Netherzone's photos for the infobox to avoid any further copyright/attribution complications?  Ppt91    talk   19:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It does take a village! I absolutely admit I have no clue if both licenses need to be there. I lean to having both, but again, I am no expert on 3D art tags. If we don't have both licenses, I lean to cc-by-sa for all of the photos by Netherzone, Beyond my Ken, and jim.henderson and adding to the description that "the sculptures were installed before the 14 April 1977 dedication and not copyrighted per the 1976 Artworks or 1977 Artworks catalogs" to show that the sculptures themselves weren't copyrighted. Does that seem reasonable? (I did warn you that I am meticulous.) However you want to show the photos is fine Ppt91. They are all not copyrighted, it's just a matter of figuring out the licensing. SusunW (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since GRuban seems to be not around, let's try, who from time to time has let me call on their expertise with images. It's so close to the holidays, not sure who is around. SusunW (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Some time ago an editor contacted me who was VERY helpful re: image permissions and licensing. I can't recall their name, but will look through a few talk pages to see if I can find their username. Will post here if I do. Netherzone (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks . Really appreciate the help. SusunW (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the question about the images in the gallery? The licensing is fine and follows best practices by clearly differentiating between the copyright of the underlying work vs. that of the photograph. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, so the licenses on the two photos taken by Beyond my Ken and jim.henderson should also be marked the same. On the "Lunar Landscape" discussion am I correct that since we don't know that it was displayed before 1978 and don't know where the photograph was taken we cannot use it? I found an alternate image that I think we can use. SusunW (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what the status is for artwork displayed indoors in museums, but I suspect it does not count. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's all very confusing, and I sincerely appreciate your help. I think if we use the photo from Art Magazine we should be fine as it was published and was not renewed and the artist had no copyright filed on the piece. Thank you so much for weighing in. SusunW (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @SusunW Apologies for my temporary silence (I was away from my computer). Thank you so much for being so thorough and involved in figuring this out. A few thoughts below.
 * I like the idea of using the other artwork, but before we move forward with that solution, I want to make sure (since we have @Buidhe and @Netherzone here) that Amon Carter's release of copyright--and them stating it is in public domain--isn't sufficient to override these issues we are currently discussing.
 * My understanding has been that as long as the museum explicitly states it's free of copyrights, we don't need to worry about the date it was first exhibited or shown to the public. Again, I am sorry if I am misunderstanding something fundamental here, but it looks like Amon Carter is very explicit about instances where reproduction only falls under free use (see more here) or if the status is undetermined.
 * When one compares the copyright for Louise Nevelson's sculptures at other institutions, few if any are in public domain. For instance, the notice attached to Sky Cathedral (1958) from the Buffalo AKG Art Museum clearly states that the work is copyrighted and may be reproduced for educational purposes only with appropriate free-use rationale included.
 * This might mean two things: either Amon Carter made an error in attribution, which I think is highly unlikely, or it is indeed public domain and we acknowledge it as such, without needing to look for any more rationale.
 * What do we think?
 * Ppt91   talk   17:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I honestly do not know. (It is literally why I always ask for a second opinion before uploading any photograph to commons. The rules are very complex and there are so many nuances.) Interested to see the others weigh in. SusunW (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If a reputable organization like a museum says the status is public domain, I am inclined to believe it for the jurisdiction the museum is in. (for example, an artwork could be public domain in one country but still under copyright in others) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for a speedy response. In this case, I am also inclined to trust the museum's rationale, which applies to the U.S. copyright laws and is applicable to this article/geographical context. If any issues arise in the future, then I'll be happy to amend it. Our exchange also makes it clear that we did our due diligence and make an informed decision based on the available data. @SusunW Are you comfortable with this solution? I am of course happy to concur with whatever your final determination is.  Ppt91    talk   18:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes perfect sense! Thank you. I'm fine with that. If you just make the Beyond my Ken and jim.henderson licensing sections match Netherzone's I think we can finally be done with the photos. I truly appreciate everyone working together on this. SusunW (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @SusunW Thank you! I just made the image edits. Let me know if they look ok (added the pd to license for sculptures along with the description edits you provided above). I've also addressed the remaining points for GA review below. Is there anything I may have missed? Happy to make any further adjustments. I really appreciate your patience and thoroughness!  Ppt91    talk   19:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we're good. As you say, no one could question whether we've done the necessary due diligence on the images . Give me a few minutes to wrap it up and I'll pass it. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Lede

 * sub-surface repairs had led lose "had" ✅ done
 * All quotes confirmed in sourcing except Wall Street Journal to which I have no access. SusunW (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Louise Nevelson

 * Yes, Swartz says born in "Kiev", as do other sources but DiBenedetto says "near Kiev", Wilson (2011) p. 91 and Wilson (2016) says in Pereyaslav (Chapter 1 search term doesn't work but it's on the first page of that chapter), and Danto, et al p. 6 simply says in Ukraine.
 * Very good catch. I've included a footnote to Wilson's 2016 biography Louise Nevelson: Art is Life to support Pereyeslav and might add a separate note explaining that later in her life Nevelson herself would say she was born in Kyiv to make it easier for people unfamiliar with her actual birth place. I also am sticking to "Kyiv" spelling, which is romanized from Ukrainian rather than "Kiev" which is romanized from Russian.  Ppt91    talk   19:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfectly fine with me however you spell it and thank you for the note on where. SusunW (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * She moved to Lower Manhattan…New paragraph should introduce the subject using the noun before introducing a pronoun instead of the noun. Lose "she" add Nevelson. ✅ done
 * No apparent copyvios in this section. SusunW (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Commission

 * During the 1970s, Nevelson received commissions check citation page. I pulled up 3 separated versions and the only mention I see of Chapel of the Good Shepherd is on p. 328 and says nothing about commissions. (I do see the information on page 112 of Carrascal Pérez) ✅ done I rephrased it to reflect the Chapel of the Good Shepherd only, linked it to the Carrascal Pérez article since it is discussed there in the context of the plaza design, and moved further down to improve the flow. Let me know if you'd like me to edit further. Happy to do so!
 * To preserve a Heritage title case Preserve ✅ done
 * No apparent copyvios in this section. SusunW (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Original plaza design

 * Funding was provided by the Mildred Andrews Fund is fairly close to the original source. Perhaps "The costs were covered by…" ✅ done
 * big, imposing and mannered appears on p. 8 of the on-line Time link, which should be noted. ✅ done
 * No apparent copyvios in this section other than as noted above. SusunW (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Later years

 * No apparent copyvios in this section SusunW (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Overall, well written, informative and an enjoyable read. I learned something, which is always my bar for an article. Thank you for the work on the article. If we can figure out the photos and you can wrap up the few remaining points, I will be happy to pass it. SusunW (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

It was a pleasure to work with you. I appreciate your collaborative spirit. SusunW (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)