Talk:Stanley Kubrick/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer's initial notes
A word about copyright and fair use. All screen caps from feature films must have full "Fair use" rational, as well as all other proper information or will have to be excluded from the article. Over use: Too many fair use images will fail the wiki guidlines. Fair use images must be kept to a minimal. If one can illustrate the subject or if the loss of the image will not effect the article then it should be removed. No fair use images for illustrative purpose. All must directly relate to section of prose they accompany. Images of 3 dimensional works of art are the copyright of the artist, not the photographer unless artistic expression of image has artistic value and preparation that could not be achieved with a simple snap shot. The “Oscar,” is the copyrighted property and registered trademark and service mark of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (“Academy”). The Academy has the sole and exclusive right to reproduce, manufacture, copy, sell, display images of and publish said statuette in any size or medium, whether in three or two dimensions, and to distribute or exploit the statuette or reproductions of same by gift, sale, license or otherwise. No reproduction, replica, drawing, photograph, derivative work or other copy of the Award of Merit statuette may be made or used by any manufacturer, advertiser, organization or individual except in accordance with these regulations or under express written license from the Academy. Any images of the Oscar are fair use and must meet all "Fair Use" standards and policies.

For this reason the article would likely be declined for listing. I will not quick decline. I will review the article, however if copyright becomes and issue of overwhelming proportions I am likely to decline before a complete review can be finished if it is determined that the issue is the main problem.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Article cannot be listed GA for overwhelming copyright issues, over use of Fair Use images and lack of rational for such
The look magazine images are missing the proper license. The one used is too specific and would be better used in permissions description box. This boilerplate can be used in the permissions section and the US government PD license used in the license section (which is missing) or both in that section. See example. Also, the self portrait has an incorrect permission with the boiler plate used for license. There are no restrictions on the image and what was posted in the permissions was "access permissions" and general warnings of the source website and library. With corrections all Look Magazine images can be used in Wikipedia per MOS and PD policy, but the "i's are not dotted, nor the t's crossed" with these images for GA and there are a lot of them to correct and they are not all used in the article correctly per MOS.

Image context to article vs illustrative only
No image may be used in a Wikipedia article unless it has proper justification to be there. It cannot simply be decorative or just illustrate the subject. It must pertain to the specific line of prose it accompanies. It must speak directly to the image itself. Not just that it shows the subject. The prose and use of the image must be connected exclusively where no other image will do. Example: an image of Kubrick with a camera in his hands does go with the prose that he was a Look Magazine photographer. That would be illustrative. However if the article says "As a Look Magazine photographer, kubrick shot a self portrait of himself with showgirl, Rosemary Williams in 1949 during a shoot for the publication." Now the image has direct context to the prose and may be used.

In the "Trademark characteristics" section the images are used instead of prose. The images depict what editors claim to be the "Kubrick stare" as mentioned by "Roger Ebert and others"(Who are others?). The claim is not mentioned in the prose of the article itself, and it is not referenced at all.

Fair use
Where copyright ends...fair use begins, however Wikipedia has stipulations that must be followed. Above and beyond all other MOS guidelines for images all fair use images must have a fully detailed rational to explain, both it's use in general as well as it's use on the specific article. In this way a Fair use image can be checked by admin or other concerned editors at the image itself. Boiler plates used for image information or just that MOS info is not sufficient to maintain a fair use image on Wikipedia. For a "Fair Use" image to remain in Wikipedia it must have a fair use rational for the 4 stipulations of law...AS WELL AS...explanations required by Wikipedia. Non-free use rationale guideline:

A well-written use rationale must explain how the use of these media meets the Non-free content criteria and should state:
 * What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage? For example, if the image is a photograph or logo, the entire work is likely being used.  A screenshot that reveals the most important discovery of a documentary or the ending of a movie, for example, though a very small portion of the work, may disproportionately compete with the copyright holder's use. In the case of a music sample, the length should be no longer than 10 percent of the song's original length or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter.
 * If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original? In the case of music samples, has the quality been reduced from the original?
 * What purpose does the image serve in the article? If applicable:
 * Is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article?
 * Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic? (e.g., a corporate logo or the box art of a DVD)
 * Does it illustrate the topic of the article? (e.g., a screen shot from a movie)
 * Is it used for commentary on a particular topic? How?
 * To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image?
 * If the image is a screenshot of a movie that is used for an article about the movie, or a corporate logo, there is obviously no such thing as a "free" version of it - all of the resources in the world could not produce one. If, on the other hand, the image is a photograph, the image is more easily replaced, even if Wikipedians may lack the resources to create a replacement.
 * Any other information necessary to assist others in determining whether the use of this image qualifies for fair use.

ALL of these points must be explained and not JUST the boilerplate information asked by the boiler plate itself. Why? Because these standards change as all standards at wiki may at one time and the templates only serve as the basis for creating your explanation. If using a template, you must ADD the information. Just because the template is not complete is no excuse for not having a proper rational and all images with such issues may be deleted from wiki. This is the main problem of the article on first glance. All fair use images must have complete boiler plate information completed as well as full rational provided. Most are not even complete with what little boiler plate questions there are. This editor will give time for uploaders to make the needed changes before seeking speedy deletionor requesting content review.

"Fair Use" minimal usage. The policy is clear. Overuse can be defined as simply using more images than are needed. This is a copyright issue. In order for fair use to apply on an individual image it's use most have a rational for inclusion. If one image will do then no others are needed. If one is too many then one is overuse. This is the article for the subject Stanley Kubrick. There can be no justification for more images of Peter Sellers than the subject of the article. A clean up is required on images and more focus must be paid to the subject of biography on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A few Notes
 * Mad Scientist. Your explanation of the images problem here is much more cogent and clear than your note at the AfD discussion of the Lolita image, so excuse my having gotten snappy with you over there.
 * The Peter Sellers images are free & public domain, and are there because he plays three radically different roles in the one film & Sellers was one of only two actors that Kubrick allowed to improvise dialogue and have a lot of creative input into his character. If that's still a problem, let me know. The text of the article does indeed discuss the "Kubrick Stare" and has recently been amended to clarify who else besides Ebert has commented it (the phrase was coined by Kubrick's camera-man- this is now in the article.)(and is appropriately referenced).
 * That said, I made quite a bit of effort to make sure these images were WP:NFCC compliant, but evidently not enough, and may not understand the issues clearly. I admit that the rationales are skimpy. Let's see if they can be improved. Thanks for going through process & peer review and not just deleting images willy-nilly.
 * I didn't upload the Look magazine images, and have less to say about their status. I didn't even check to see if they were non-free or not. There may be a better choice of such a magazine photo than the one currently used.
 * I have two minutes left on this computer in a public library, and have also run out (for now) of things to say. I will later try to post here a general sketch of what I think is the broad rationale of each of the images.
 * Believe me, there are dozens and dozens of images I have looked at and not put here because I felt they were obviously not at all complaint with WP:NFCC and could be possibly construed to add to the reader's understanding. All the ones I put here, I believed they did even if the explanation does not seem fully adequate.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * After reading the "A Good Article Is" section posted above by User:Amadscientist in the GA review, I noticed this statement: "Non-free images must be low resolution (less than 300 pixels vertically or horizontally). This is the equivalent of 0.1 megapixels, as described here. Non-free images with higher resolutions must explain why this is necessary".There is no basis for this statement anywhere in WP:NFCC, WP:IUP, WP:IMAGES, WP:GACR, WP:RAT,  WP:MOSIM, or in the Non-fair use template here. If there is no basis for this statement, it should be excised from that "guideline" as there is nothing to support it.  Shirt  waist &#9742;  12:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)