Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Great Mosque of Djenne

Great Mosque of Djenne
Self-nomination, but it has undergone a peer review. The article is about the largest mud-brick building in the world and the most prominent icon of Mali. The article has four sections (including External links), four pictures, and is three pages long when printed. If it is selected as a featured article it would only be the second building to be selected. -JCarriker 02:58, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

an infringement Also if a site plan is included, it needs to be in a new section; it would be too distracting in any of the existing sections. -JCarriker 19:39, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC) necessary is consensus, and consensus does not mean that noone objects. &mdash; Matt 17:06, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. Peer review as in Peer review?  It is a lovely article.  My only complaint -- could someone create stubs for one or two of the red links on the first page of text?  +sj +  20:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Peer review: No just a peer review, I asked three wikipedians to review the article. Redlinks: Done. -JCarriker 23:39, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Burgundavia 21:00, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Wetman 01:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. One note: there must be some books written about this famous building. I'd like to see one or two of them listed as a reference in the article. Jeronimo 11:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. 172 11:54, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. Captions: The captions look good, though the passive verbs diminish their efficacy. -- ke4roh 16:11, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. (And I think the passive verbs in the captions are good- they emphasise what the picture shows). Markalexander100 03:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Fascinating, well-written, well illustrated.    ALargeElk | Talk 14:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Great article. 1) Can we beef up the lead a little? In particular, could we have perhaps one sentence each on the history and the cultural significance of the Mosque? Currently it takes a page of reading into the article until you learn when in time it was built, which makes it harder to get a grasp of what the building's all about. 2) "The walls are between 41 cm (16 in.) and 61 cm (24 in.) thick. The wall thickness depends on the height of the walls: the taller the wall, the thicker the wall, and especially the base the wall has to be thick enough to support the wall's weight." -- too many instances of the word "wall". 3) It's quite tricky to get a feel for the layout of the place from the article at the moment; a diagram would be great for this. Something along the lines of or  would be ideal. -- Matt 16:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Numbers 1 and 2 done. Markalexander100 01:26, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3. Clearly marked links to those the diagrams have been added, under external links. -JCarriker 17:49, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I'm going to continue to (reluctantly) object &mdash; a featured article shouldn't have any obvious gaps, and I think an article about a famous building should include some kind of layout / plan / diagram, in addition to photos. If they're located behind an external link, then it's not really the best of Wikipedia as such. Would it be worth contacting the Getty Trust about releasing their diagrams into the public domain or licensing them as GFDL? &mdash; Matt 15:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I e-mailed the Getty Trust in early June, seeking permission to use photos(not the cross-section or site plan), and they have yet to respond. Perhaps they did not recieve my e-mail, however others I e-mailed at that time did. It certainly wouldn't hurt if you contacted them again. However, the only other building that is Featured is the Parthenon and it does not have a cross section or a site plan. I think it would also be difficult to include a cross-section or site plan with labels in the article at a readable size that would not be distracting. Including a cross-section really isn't pragmatic; when minimized the appear as nothing more than a vague connection of dots. I can make a grayscale and labless (the usual style) site plan using the Getty image. I'm would not make an exact copy, I would not go into the detail about the raised platform they do to increase clarity for when the image is reduced as well as aviding a copyright infringement; although I fear that may not be enoguh to avoid
 * Not all images have to be reduced to thumbnail size, especially if they are a key diagram; check out Traditional counties of England. It would be great if you were willing to make a diagram. &mdash; Matt 08:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I really think it's asking too much to demand a cross-section/plan.  Effectively that means that no building will ever be a featured article, which would do no good at all. Yes it would be nice to have, but I realistically this is as good as we can get (and it's pretty good). Markalexander100 05:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "no building will ever be a featured article"; it's not that difficult to produce figures and diagrams. (Note also that my objection doesn't necessarily mean the article will not be featured.) I agree that this article is pretty good, but I object because I see an obvious way that it could be better. &mdash; Matt 08:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, if you object we probably don't have a consensus.  A featured doesn't have to be as perfect as it could possibly be ever; just good enough.  I'd be sad to see this one not make it.  Markalexander100 08:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't mean unanimity; this article has a lot of support. I agree that a featured article doesn't have to be the (legendary) perfect article, but I don't think we should feature articles either with obvious flaws or with obvious omissions. &mdash; Matt 09:09, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * After further review, I beleive my proposal would infact be a copyright violation. Since the Getty images are the only ones on the net, I sincerly doubt that the objection is actionable. I hope you will consider withdrawing it. If you are able to secure an image, it would be too distracting to add a huge site plan to the article; it would need to be minimized or not present in the article at all. -JCarriker 14:10, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Why would a (medium-sized) site-plan / diagram distract from the article? I'd certainly find it useful when reading the description of the building, because on its own I couldn't grasp the layout; a large image helped in the "counties" example mentioned above. Also, is it really a copyvio if you create an original diagram of a real building, regardless of how you learned the information? Clearly, you couldn't simply duplicate the Getty diagram, but that's not necessary. IANAL, but I'd be surprised if this is a legal problem here. Finally, the objection is "actionable" because it is A) specific and B) something can be done to "fix" the problem &mdash; someone could create their own diagram; just because the information on the Internet is limited (although I think it is sufficient), doesn't mean that there's nothing that can be done. &mdash; Matt 14:29, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not willing to take the risk of a copy vio, I personally can't afford a litigation and I don't want to burden wikipedia with another court battle. If you are confident enough to take the risk, then by all means proceed. If you are not, then please withdraw your objection. If this is not resolved the articel would not be featured, and that would be most unfortunate. -JCarriker 04:39, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * What's your copyvio fear? Also, you say, "If this is not resolved the article would not be featured" &mdash; as it stands (9/10 support), it is very likely to get promoted. It is perfectly acceptable for me to object even if I'm unable (or unwilling) to fix the cause of the objection myself. Just out of interest, you say "another court battle"; how many court battles is Wikipedia embroiled in? &mdash; Matt 14:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That a site plan utilizing the Getty image will be similar enough to it's source illiciate a suit. Wikipedia is envolved in sevaral court cases or threats there of; most notably in some sort of dibacle involving IBM and our software. (It's been a few weeks since I saw it so it may be sketchy). It is certainly acceptable for you to object even if you don't have the means to resolve your objection; it is not if you are simply unwilling. However, articles with unresolved objections are removed from the candidate list: If enough time passes (approximately two weeks) without objections being resolved an article may be removed from the candidates list.. Your objection will kill the article's chance of becoming featured if it is not resolved, regardless of your circumstances. -JCarriker 16:16, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I think a site plan could be made using the information obtained from the Getty images and the photographs that wouldn't constitute a copyright violation. If I created a list of countries and their capitals with information obtained from some copyrighted almanac, it wouldn't be a copyvio unless the articles were overly similar. You can't copyright knowledge, just an particular expression of that knowledge. Two site plans are always going to be similar 2) What's to stop me objecting even if I'm unwilling to fix the objection myself? We're nominating and selecting articles for Featured Article status, so a person either agrees or disagrees as to whether an article is suitable, and expresses their opinion accordingly. "Actionable" doesn't mean that the objector must fix it or else back down, just that something can be done. 3) You are mistaken about "killing the article's chances" &mdash; articles are promoted with continuing objections; a recent example is Laika. All that's
 * Support [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞ ]] 14:06, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Avala 19:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)