Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Museum of Curiosity/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:13, 22 July 2008.

The Museum of Curiosity

 * Nominator(s): ISD (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe this article to be of a high enough quality to become an FA. This article is already a GA and has gone through a peer review. I made the edits I thought were most appropraite for the article. Therefore, I believe this article should be promoted. ISD (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How curious. I think you need to have a fair use rationale and a fair-use copyright tag on the images rather than a GFDL licence. DrKiernan (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What sort of licences? Do you have links to the ones that would be most appropriate? I didn't think the article would need them because I have been given permission to use them from the show's creators. ISD (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You could ask the show's creators to contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org to confirm that they accept to freely licensing the image. That way, we can retain the GFDL license and have a permanent record of their agreement. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked them and I'm currently waiting for a reply. ISD (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, you can amend the licenses by replacing the GFDL tag with a fair use copyright tag and rationale. The problem is that GFDL permits anyone to copy, use or distribute the image (with an appropriate explanation of the image's history), but this conflicts with the second tag, which explicitly prohibits use by third parties. DrKiernan (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but which fair use copyright tag should be used? Do you have a link to it? ISD (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Judging from what's said right at the bottom of the Image copyright tags/Non-free page, try and  in addition to Non-free with permission. You could try asking User:Elcobbola, who's more knowledgable than I on this sort of thing. DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the templates you suggested. ISD (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont think any of those images can be used under FU, they would both fail WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * First sentence needs no comma.
 * "a radio comedy panel game"? Couldn't that be rephrased somehow?
 * Why? Is a UK standard phrase with lots of ghits Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. It just sounded awkward to me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm out of time right now. More comments later. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly is an overseer?
 * Sometimes the serial comma is used, sometimes not.

More comments Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "In the show, the panel attempt to donate a range of curious objects to the museum." - should that not be "attempts"?
 * "and is considered by some..." Who?
 * "As a result, critics tend to compare the series to QI,[ with some critics saying" - 1) the second "critics" is redundant to the first 2) As above, which critics?
 * 'for example, "The implausible pitch change"' - explanation of this would be nice. Also, why is "the" capitalised?
 * "Bailey and Lloyd introduce themselves as well as giving the audience and listeners a short guide to the museum." - awkward sentence, consider rephrasing.
 * "They then introduce the "Advisory committee"; a panel made up of a mixture of celebrities and academic experts, with Lloyd reading out their CVs.[4]" - 1) Why is "Advisory" capitalised? 2) The semi-colon should be a comma, methinks.
 * "The donation can be anything, no matter how large, expensive, intangible, or even if there are doubts over whether or not the donation actually exists." - could be phrased far more concisely and less awkwardly as "The donation can be anything, no matter how large, expensive, intangible, or possibly nonexistent."
 * Not much on the production - are you sure it's comprehensive?
 * "described the show as being "Unusual" and "Eclectic"." - what is with this article and inappropriate capitalisation of quoted words/phrases?
 * "Chris Campling, writing a preview of the episode highlighted the series in his "Radio Choice" column in The Times." - not a complete sentence.
 * "Miranda Sawyer of The Observer criticised the show[needs comma] saying that..."
 * Response to comments - I've carried out the changes you asked for. As far as the capitalisation was concerned, I thought that was correct grammar. ISD (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work. I'll probably have to wait for the below to be addressed and take another look before I can decide whether to support or not. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

criteria 3 - I dont understand the licencing of these images, could this be clarified Fasach Nua (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://epguides.com/
 * http://www.chortle.co.uk/
 * http://www.comedy.org.uk/
 * Otherwise sources looked good, links checked out with the link checking tool.
 * I've have used epguides on several articles because it provides a guide to all the episodes, edited by a single user. I used chortle because it often the most reliable source for the stories revolving around comedy in the UK. I used the British Comedy Guide (comedy.org.uk) because as far as I know, it is the only completely up-to-date guide to the entire series. I have had doubts over using this because I was the one who created the article. However, the article was edited by someone else, and as it is the only guide on a website which could be considered to be a reliable source, I think it is permissable for me to use it. ISD (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reviewing only image licensing: I'm not sure that the two images contribute much to the article, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. However, the "replaceable" field needs to be fixed. --NE2 12:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree neither image is justifiable under WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.