Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hopkins School/archive1

Hopkins School

 * First Peer Review, First FAC, Second Peer Review
 * Info sourced from the unpublished manuscript has been removed until a policy change allows its use, and the two remaining contested fair use images have been removed pending free release or a new free version.

This article has undergone some extremely large edits, in large part by me but also with enormous help from WP:Schools members such as Harro5 and Bishonen (who, while not a member, was a key contributor to Wikipedia's only current FA school article, Caulfield Grammar School). The first FAC failed due to my naivete at Wikipedia and I believe all the issues present in the first PR/FAC cycle and the second PR have been addressed. The article is listed as a Good Article, is a showcase article on and features a showcase picture from Portal:Schools, and deserves to be a FA IMHO.
 * Nominate and support Staxringold 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support. When this article first came up for a FAC vote, I objected because the history section of the "second oldest secondary school in continuous existence in North America" was woefully lacking. Since then, the authors have done a bang-up job in improving the article and researching the fascinating history of this school while also addressing all of concerns other editors had. Excellent work and deserving of Featured Article status.--Alabamaboy 18:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support. If I weren't so partisan, I'd say this article trumps Caulfield's. There are no flaws left in this one. Harr o 5 20:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I would say however, that there could be a slight readjusment of the picutres, you need really to break the article up by having at least one picture on the left hand side, apart from that pretty good. --Wisd e n17 20:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, great job.  jaco plane  20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support: Seven of the sources are from "Unpublished Manscripts by School Archivist Thom Peters, ca 2005". WP:RS requires published sources.  (Also per this ArbCom decision) My objection has been remedied.  -- Gnetwerker 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply The definition on WP:RS for primary sources directly fits this information, and while it has not been published to the public WP:RS states "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication" and the school's archivist is most definetly credible and reliable IMO. I can remove the information if it's a serious problem, but the original research issue was already pushed through (from both PRs) with no one complaining about the manuscript. As I said, I'd be happy to remove the information if others feel this way, but it seems like WP:RS just wants to make sure people aren't sourcing things with imaginary text, this is coming directly from the archivist and school historian. Staxringold 00:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but I am getting reprimanded by ArbCom for using unpublished archival material from Reed College. It seems like a good page (yours, that is), and I am sorry to spread the pain, but one way or the other we need to be consistent. On the other hand, there is always WP:IAR. -- Gnetwerker 00:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I don't think archival material should be punished just because it isn't published. In fact, I think the IAR acronym that applies to this situation isn't ignore all rules, but Interpret all rules. WP:NOR and WP:RS exist to ensure data is verified by credible sources, and there is no one more credible on Hopkins School information than the Hopkins School archivist. Staxringold 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the unpublished references in this case are acceptable. If there is a choice between published and unpublished references, then we should always go with the published ones. But in this case the needed info isn't available in a published format. In addition, Gnetwerker states that he is being reprimanded by ArbCom for unpublished archival material. This is not quite true. According to the Proposed_decision, they have problems with Gnetwerker using original research, namely interviews he did with people and internal documents of the college. These types of unpublished references are different than the ones in this case, which are from an unpublished manuscript and materials in the school's archives. The ArbCom has an issue with references which are only available to one person, not to unpublished references in a publically accessible school archive. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the ArbCom case in question is about references used only in Talk (!) and ones available to college "insiders" (not a single individual), but they declined to address the issue in any depth. There certainly is an argument that this case is different, but insofar as ArbCom has precedent, it is "no unpublished sources". -- Gnetwerker 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Arbcom only has precedent over the actions of individual editors who have been through Arbitration. As they state in their pending ruling, "Gnetwerker is cautioned to avoid using unpublished material as a source." This ruling doesn't apply to other editors. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically my thoughts, Alabamaboy. I have put this issue up for comment to get a more general idea that applies to this situation. Staxringold 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Good work. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object as before, only more so: The images Image:Hopkins campus map 01.JPG, Image:HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons2.jpg, and Image:HopkinsMascotGoat1.gif are claimed as "fair use". However, it's quite possble for a Wikipedian to make a free-license replacement, so there's no reason to use non-free images in the article.  Image:Hopkins stuco prez.jpg might be a little harder, but it doesn't add much to the article. --Carnildo 04:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Since when are fair use images a reason to object to an FAC? In fact, the only section on images in "What is a featured article" states "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." I believe the images are appropriate (I can remove the STUCO one if you think it's pointless), captions are all succinct as possible (and that wasn't a complaint of yours), and all the images have correct copyright status. Simply having fair use images in an article is not a violation of WP:WIAFA. Nonetheless, I believe I have a self-created image (actually higher-res) of the goat that I'll upload to replace HopkinsMascotGoat1, and the campus map was explicitly stated to be all right to use and clearly given to me to use in the Wikipedia article. Maybe there's a better license than fairuse, but I thought that's what applied. As for HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons, maybe you could create a non-fair use version but I think it's a gorgeous photo, and articles are allowed to use fair use images.. I can remove StucoPrez if you don't think it's useful, but I think it's nice to show the pomp and ceremony involved in student government (and, as you said, it would likely be difficult to get a free versions as only Hopkins staff gets that close to the stage with a camera). Staxringold 11:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you are a student at the school, is it possible to get permission to have the images released by the school or whoever took them under the GNU Free Documentation License, per instructions at Confirmation of permission?--Alabamaboy 15:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That what I've been working on since I read Carnildo's comments. I have already replaced the goat image with a GFDL version I took, and I've sent an email off to the person I got the campus map from if she will release it under GFDL or Creative Commons (I included Creative Commons since it's at least possible Hopkins doesn't want it to be commercially reused). I'll send out a request to the yearbook editors if they can release the Heath image as well. Staxringold 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Improper fair-use images have been a reason to object since the beginning of time, or at least since the beginning of the formal FAC process. Point 4 of "what is a featured article" specifies "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status", and fair-use images are only appropriate when they add significantly to the article and are impossible to replace with free-license images. --Carnildo 19:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why I am attempting to get the images released if possible, but theoretically anything could be replaced by a free image. The image of Heath (which may or may not be free-released, I'm trying) is a very high-quality shot that displays a brand-new facility. I would say that adds significantly to the article. Ditto for the campus map (and I've already fixed the goat image). Staxringold 19:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Some images can't be replaced with free versions, such as the crash of the Hindenburg, or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. However, if it's possible for the image to be replaced, it should be.  Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and free images should be used even if they're lower-quality than non-free images. --Carnildo 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the only way I could get you to change your vote to get both remaining images either free-released, or remove them from the article? I can maybe understand your opinion that the Heath Commons image doesn't add enough to be a clear fair use, but certainly the campus map adds a great deal. Staxringold 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The campus map is also the easier one to replace. Anyone with a good drafting program and a survey of the campus (or even an orthophoto of the area) could make a replacement.  Or someone with tinkering skills, a camera, a kite, and a good deal of luck could replace it with a photograph. --Carnildo 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What kind of standard is that though? WP:WIAFA in no way requires free images if they are physically possible over fair use image, and until I hear back on my request to GFDL/CC-release it the map is as released as possible for a fair use image, given easily for use on Wikipedia. If you can link me to or suggest a good free "drafting program" I'd be happy to throw something together. See the subsection below to try and solve these issues. Staxringold 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Free drafting programs seem to be a bit thin on the ground, but Inkscape is a pretty good vector-art program which could be used to produce a map. --Carnildo 09:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I continue to wait on the two removed images, hopefully I can add them back with a free license. For Raul, whenever he reviews this FAC: I have now twice asked Carnildo what his remaining issue with this article on his talk page. The STUCO President image is irreplaceable until graduation, and even then would be incredibly difficult given how graduation is laid out (also, he did not outright state that image as an issue here). Until I figure out what Carnildo wants, there is nothing further actionable I can do to fix this article for him. Staxringold 02:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How long is it until graduation? Two months?  Three?  I think the article can survive without the image until then. --Carnildo 07:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Carnildo, will you support if the image is removed? I don't think it adds a lot. Harr o 5 08:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I usually don't support FACs, but I will withdraw my objection. --Carnildo 06:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, with the kind words about me in the nominiation this is probably not what is expected, but Oppose, I have to agree with Carnildo. The map of the campus and the yearbook photos may have been okayed for Wikipedia to use, but from the Fair Use rationales provided, they'll make re-use of this article by others difficult. Featured articles are supposed to resolve such problems; it's only if that is impossible, or really, really hard, that such use as this becomes fair. It doesn't to me look to be even a little hard to replace Image:HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons2.jpg, provided one of you has a camera. The map is very nice, perhaps you can't draw an equally pretty one, but I'm sure you can draw a map. Bishonen [[Image:Bishface.tulip.png|14px]] talk 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC).
 * P. S. Er, and do you realize that the nice sort of touching pic of the dininghall from 1928 appears twice...? Bishonen [[Image:Bishface.tulip.png|14px]] talk 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC).
 * I have retagged the campus map from fair use to since it was used with permission for Wikipedia. Staxringold 20:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to PS That's very odd... Must've gotten left behind when I was rearranging the images. Thanks for pointing it out, I moved the 1911 student body pic under the Modern Day header, and deleted the 1928 dining hall instance from the history section entirely (now only under student priveleges). Staxringold 20:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * PROPOSED SOLUTION TO IMAGE COPYRIGHT ISSUES The two remaining images that are currently at issue are Image:Hopkins campus map 01.JPG and Image:HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons2.jpg. I have a request out for the map to be GFDL/CC released and requests both to GFDL-release the Heath image and/or to replace it with an image created by a freind of mine with a nice camera and photographic sense. Until these are replied to, what would be appropriate solutions? I could create a quick, boxy, birds-eye view of the campus on Photoshop to replace the much better map to keep that section of the article free until I hear back. As for the Heath image, shall I remove it until hearing back from either request? If I undertook these actions, would you two (Carnildo and Bishonen) be willing to support the article, or do you see other issues requiring resolution. Staxringold 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, Staxringgold, you're asking the wrong question there: withdrawing objections isn't the same thing as supporting. Yes, I would withdraw my objection if you did that, but I'm not ready to support. I want to congratulate you on the nice historical research, but I think the prose is now a bit too choppy — it doesn't flow. It would be great if you had a shot at fixing it — mainly, by linking some of the short "subject+verb+a few words more" sentences together into more sophisticated units — but if that's a problem, I'll have a go myself tomorrow, see what I can do, and then decide whether I feel I can support. (I'm sorry I didn't look at this earlier, but I've been a bit busy.) Bishonen [[Image:Bishface.tulip.png|14px]] talk 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC).
 * That's why I asked if you had any further issues. I'll take a good look at the history section as well. Staxringold 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my objection. Bishonen [[Image:Bishface.tulip.png|14px]] talk 22:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC).


 * Oppose until issue of unpublished sources is resolved. Kaldari 22:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the unpublished material has been removed, I change my vote to Support. Kaldari 22:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I've read more closely (and also copyedited a little), and it's looking good, with good use made of terrific, intrinsically interesting, historical material. I'm ready to support, even though there's IMO too much detail under "facilities", of a kind better suited for attracting parents, or even helping students find their way around, than informing readers of an international encyclopedia—why would such readers care which building the teachers' lounge is in, etc, etc? But I have avoided taking out any information, as I may be in a minority here. Please do think about it, though. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Support Good article, well cited, and with good information. Also I think it is about time we get some schools for FACs. SorryGuy 06:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Many say "We need more featured article quality school articles on Wikipedia," but almost no one says "I think I'll try doing it myself!"   has taken this and made it into what we see here today.  Congratulations on a well-sourced, well-written quality school featured article.  May this be start of many more. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)