Talk:Tycho Brahe/GA2

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

The article assessor as a new editor was unable to provide a sufficiently critical assessment of this article. As such, I will be doing a re-assessment for this article. At the end of this review I will either Keep or De-list this article from GA status. Normally I would place a complete review of the article into the below review box, however, in this instance I will go criterion by criterion from the most pressing issue to the least pressing issue.

For the image licenses could you explain a little what the problems are and how to fix them? For example what is the problem with image 15 which was uploaded as authors own work - how can anyone be expected to identify that the uploader actually made the image, and does AGF not apply to uploads of this kind? Also as far as I know wikipedians who upload in their username get credited to their username and they do so through the link to the image, not in the caption. It is also quite suprising to me that photos of 16th century documents need additional licensing other than PD.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we use file name rather than image number so we all clearly know which images are being discussed? I think the numbering above excluded the signature image
 * File:Tycho_Brahe.JPG: tag added
 * File:Tycho_Cas_SN1572.jpg: tag added, the person who did the retouching is identified in the file history section
 * File:Uraniborgskiss_90.jpg: tag added
 * File:Tycho-Brahe-Mural-Quadrant.jpg: tag added
 * File:Brahe_notebook.jpg: there is a source already provided which gives further information; however, it isn't clear to me that PD-1923 would be correct
 * File:Astronomiae_Instauratae_Progymnasmata.jpg: tag added
 * File:Tycho_Brahe_Grave_DSCN2900.jpg: author and date are already clearly provided
 * File:Fotothek_df_tg_0005915_Astronomie_^_Messinstrument.jpg: tag added
 * File:Fotothek_df_tg_0005918_Astronomie_^_Messinstrument.jpg: tag added
 * File:Naboth_Capella.JPG: tag added
 * File:Libr0309.jpg: PD-1923 added - you can verify this by looking at the image itself, as it's the frontispiece for a published book. Under US law a simple reproduction of a 2D work does not warrant a new copyright, so we need only consider the status of the original work and not the scan
 * File:Brahe_kepler.jpg: this image is fine and needs no modification. The statue is located in the Czech Republic, which has freedom of panorama for sculptural works; thus, only the copyright of the photographer need be considered, not that of the original creator. While it may well be useful to provide further information on the original work, it isn't mandatory. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , sorry I missed your message, just saw it. Thanks Nikki Maria for putting the tags on the images. I actually missed the author being mentioned on the flickr photo, my mistake. I do have a question, can we actually AGF for images that are presented as "own work" but which aren't verifiable as being such in any way? You said it yourself, the "copyright of the photographer needs to be considered", well, it's possible that somebody is claiming the work as being their own without it actually being their own. If AGF is appropriate, fine by me, I think all the other images have been resolved wait, the notebook image as well is left. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking: if you have reason to think that an image presented as "own work" isn't, you should raise that for discussion - it does happen. However, if there's no reason to think otherwise, then yes, we assume the uploader was telling the truth. Consider: if you went on vacation, photographed a cool sculpture and uploaded the image, how might you prove that you took that picture? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , have a picture of yourself taking the picture. I kid of course. Fair enough, question raised and answered. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude, it's been four weeks since this has been updated. What is the status of the reassessment? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * parts of my assessment for citations hasn't been met - there are still a number of sentences that lack citations though many of the above have been dealt with in some form or another. There are two images that still need addressing as well - File:Libr0309.jpg and File:Brahe notebook.jpg., when would you be able to address the remaining items for 3a and 6a so that I can go through the article a second time around and confirm the other criteria? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am almost back from wiki break, but I will need another week untill after the 17th before I begin work on this again.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, and I have no problem with this. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maunus, Mr rnddude, it's been another month without any work on the article. Any news? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't get the time I thought I would. You can close the review if you think it will make the world a better place.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll close the GA/R as having failed. Excellent effort was put into this article, however, the hasty initial GA review failed to identify any of the problems the article had, let alone give time for these to be addressed. As it's been a couple months I can only suggest that you take the time to deal with the citations when you get the chance and check the remaining images as well. Give the article a general copy-edit and then resubmit for GA. Hopefully you'll get a proper GA review the next time. Sorry about this, but, it could stretch out indefinitely if we let it. Good luck, this article is one that you've put a lot of effort into. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)