Talk:Monsey Church/GA1

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

Reviewer: Njavallil (talk · contribs) 21:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Monsey Church
Hi, I only have 572 edits but I think, as a reader this is an excellent written, brilliantly structured article. So Wikipedia community thinks this satisfy Wikipedia's Policies. -- Njavallil ... Talk 2 Me  21:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your conclusion and I am implementing an Individual reassessment per Good article reassessment. This article currently fails Good article criteria 6 which requires that images are tagged with their copyright status or valid fair use rationales. There are many images used here and they claim they are the work of Pwdennis2. Through inductive reasoning, I think I understand where the images are coming from, but they do not belong to Pwdennis2. If the source of the images is the church or an historical society, then they should be attributed in as the source. Also, File:NewHopeLogo300.png clearly belongs to this organization which does claim "Copyright © 2011 New Hope Christian Church - All Rights Reserved" and so does require explicit permission. As such, I have delisted the article. If the images are properly tagged with the appropriate copyright tags, it can be re-nominated or anyone can appeal my conclusions using a community reassessment at Good article reassessment. maclean (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Further to that, even when the source of the images is tagged as the church/historical society... if the image is still in copyright (e.g. the photographer died less than 70 years ago), then the copyright holder (likely to be the photographer) should give their licensing by commons:COM:OTRS. Owning a physical copy of the image does not give you the right to copy it or choose a license on their behalf.  --99of9 (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)