Talk:Willy Vandersteen

Good article
The article is relatively good but there are some parts that could use some work. This is my first good article review ever though so feel free to disregard my opinions. -Icewedge 03:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The into should be expanded it is currently one sentence.
 * I think the biography would be better if broken into time periods with names other than just dates (eg ."his work in Belgium")
 * More references should be cited.
 * Thanks for the comments, they are useful. I'll have to think about your second point, but I have expanded the intro now (with some additional sources!). I hope this helps a bit. Fram 08:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail: GreenJoe 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * a Pass/Fail: GreenJoe 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting the article on hold. It really needs to have a longer lead per WP:MOS, and if possible, a few more images. I agree with Fram Icewedge, more references should be cited. GreenJoe 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * With the expanded intro I think it is a good enough article. There are a few Manual of Style issues but there not particularly bad. As I have said before I am not an expert GA reviewer but it has my pass vote. If you want this to reach featured article standard though the main biography portion is going to need some reformatting. Keep up the good work Fram :) -Icewedge 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind review. I have expanded the intro, adding some significant facts, I just hope it is not too promotional now (even though it is sourced). As for more images, I would prefer this as well, but I have no method to get free (public domain) pics of Vandersteen or his work, and adding more fair use pics will be a violation of the fair use standards. Fram 11:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How to get free images in your spare time. GreenJoe 15:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added one more image from commons. As for contacting the person: well, he is rather dead :-) I can always check with his publisher of course, to see if they want to relese an image of him and/or his creations with a suitable license. Thanks for the info! Fram 08:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please provide translation
Per WP:V, "When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page." PPdd (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And WP:V continues with "When posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline". It is impossible to present the original here without violating the copyright policies, as the original Dutch source has been used extensively, not just some sentences here and there. Fram (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Formal request under WP:V is striken as pointy, however, it would be helpful to have a translation even without a formal request. PPdd (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PPdd, which sentence(s)/statements in the article are you concerned about? As Fram notes it's not possible to provide and translate more than one or two sentences here without violating copyright, but a lot of editors who can help you verify content and perhaps even send you longer passages of translated text via e-mail can be found here. --Six words (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but he or she is probably not really interested in any specific statements, just trying to make a point because of Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, where I mentioned this article as an example of why it isn't always possible to provide quotes and translations for all cites: his response was to come here and ask for quotes and translations... 14:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, it was commented elsewhere that I was being pointy in the translation request, and I was. This request was sincere and was not pointy, and followed up many associated deletions in the article history, where deletions were made because of no translation being provided, and article inconsistencies between different assertions based on different Chinese language hard copy sources. PPdd (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. --Six words (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)