Talk:Lovejoy Columns/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 23:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Earwig's tool was used, and anything flagged was appropriately in quotes in the article. No issues of concern.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * Layout per Wikipedia guidelines.
 * B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * 25 individual credible sources used in the article, primarily either published mainstream media, or online credible sources.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * WikiHistory shows the nominator as article creator and primary editor. The only edits since nomination have been to add coordinates, and correct typos.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Three images used:
 * File:The Lovejoy Columns.jpg - Per Commons Freedom of panorama United States, Artworks and sculptures, who owns the copyright on the art needs to be established; if no copyright, needs to be appropriately tagged on Commons.  If all else is cleared for its use, image already has caption in the article but needs WP:ALT, per WP:CAP
 * File:Old Lovejoy viaduct viewed from 10th Ave ramp on 7-31-99.jpg - Per FOP above, image is an architectural work and needs to be tagged with {FoP-US}} on Commons. Also, image already has caption in the article but needs WP:ALT, per WP:CAP
 * File:Gus Van Sant 01.jpg - If this is a living person, the image on Commons needs to carry the {Personality rights}} tag. Also, image already has caption in the article but needs WP:ALT, per WP:CAP
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Three images used:
 * File:The Lovejoy Columns.jpg - Per Commons Freedom of panorama United States, Artworks and sculptures, who owns the copyright on the art needs to be established; if no copyright, needs to be appropriately tagged on Commons.  If all else is cleared for its use, image already has caption in the article but needs WP:ALT, per WP:CAP
 * File:Old Lovejoy viaduct viewed from 10th Ave ramp on 7-31-99.jpg - Per FOP above, image is an architectural work and needs to be tagged with {FoP-US}} on Commons. Also, image already has caption in the article but needs WP:ALT, per WP:CAP
 * File:Gus Van Sant 01.jpg - If this is a living person, the image on Commons needs to carry the {Personality rights}} tag. Also, image already has caption in the article but needs WP:ALT, per WP:CAP
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Everything is fine on this article, except for the image issues that need to be taken care of. I'll put this on hold until that is cleared up. — Maile  (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

1) I have no idea if the work is copyrighted or not. The original drawings were just street art, which were later reproduced after the columns were moved. I highly doubt anything was copyrighted along the way, but have no way of knowing for sure. 2) I added the FoP-US tag to the image of the bridge, but this tag says it applies to structures created after 1990. The columns were not. So, is this tag still appropriate? Additional thought: Actually, the columns were re-sited in their current location after 1990, so perhaps the tag is applicable? Image policies are so confusing... 3) I added the Personality rights tag to the image of Van Sant. I've added alt text for all three images. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I see the alt text has been added to all.
 * Leave the tag on the bridge; it won't hurt. I agree - image policies are confusing. In regards to bridges (viaduct) specifically, it says "All such works are copyrighted and, therefore, covered by the FOP exemption only if they are visible from a public place." but does otherwise indicate above it that anything architecture prior to 1990 is public domain.
 * The image of the man is fine now that it's been appropriately tagged.
 * Artwork, that is the columns, is a problem. any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork. In addition, 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). In these situations, document the date of installation and the creator (sculptor) of the pictured work as much as possible. (A good resource for finding information about U.S. sculptures is the Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog.) Is there anyone you could email to ask about it? Maybe the Portland visitors bureau, or some place similar? — Maile  (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We should keep in mind, these drawings were created on the sides of columns between 1948 and 1952, far before the 1978 threshold. I can't imagine they were copyrighted... this was just street art. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning your direction on this. But just to cover us before we finally tick off on this, I'd like to get a second opinion from, who I think has good knowledge on these art copyright issues. — Maile  (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maile, the person I recommend asking is, who is far more knowledgeable than I regarding art copyright. I'm sure he'll be by to help when he gets a chance. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't say I disagree with AB. It would be unheard of for a street artist to put a copyright notice on such works. Without a notice, they'd be PD. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Then I am more than happy to pass this. Sorry for the delay.  Great job.  Love the article, love the images.  Thanks for your patience on this review. — Maile  (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for taking time to review the article and for your assistance. I hope to incorporate a couple more sources (currently posted on the talk page) then promote the article to Featured status eventually. Your help is much appreciated. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)