Wikipedia:Featured article review/Paragraph 175/archive1


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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:21, 7 August 2008.

Review commentary

 * User:Jmabel, User:Amys, WP:WikiProject LGBT studies, and WP:WikiProject Germany have all been notified. —Angr 16:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an old FA, from 2004, when FA criteria weren't applied as strictly as they are today. It has a number of issues: For these reasons, I don't think the article is up to FA standard. —Angr 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Lack of inline citations. Most (but not all!) direct quotations are cited, but individual claims in paragraphs are not. One claim has been tagged "citation needed" for almost a year and a half!
 * 2) Much of the article seems to use German Wikipedia as a source, but Wikipedias are not considered reliable sources.
 * 3) The non-free images Image:Poster against Paragraph 175.jpg and Image:Paragraph175filmdvdcover.jpg are problematic. Both are larger than 100,000 pixels (i.e. not low-resolution); neither is used in conjunction with direct critical commentary (neither the poster itself nor the film itself is discussed in the text), and Image:Poster against Paragraph 175.jpg doesn't even have a fair-use rationale.
 * User:Jmabel, User:Amys, WP:WikiProject LGBT studies, and WP:WikiProject Germany have all been notified. —Angr 16:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. I basically translated this from the German Wikipedia at a time when our (and their) citation standards were a lot more lax. The German original had been heavily discussed and vetted. I'm quite confident it is an accurate article and extremely informative on its topic. But there is almost no chance that I can bring it up to current FA standards. I never saw the sources myself; they are in German, which I read decently, but not well enough to work my way through multiple books and do re-research (especially now that I'm working an intense, full-time job); and, in any event, I doubt that any large number of those sources would be available to me here in Seattle. So even though I translated the bulk of this, I'm very unlikely to be able to help.


 * I would strongly recommend improving the citations in the German original and then bringing them over rather than working on this primarily and directly in the English Wikipedia. And I realize that will probably not be a fast route to bringing this up to the level of citation currently required for an FA. - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm not at all sure Image:Poster against Paragraph 175.jpg rises to the level of copyrightable (so there may be no rights issue at all). In any event, it would be trivial to overwrite the image with a lower resolution equivalent: it's a rather minimal black-and-white poster that would look almost identical as a very coarse JPEG. - Jmabel | Talk 04:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, their citation standards are still lax. I live in Germany and read German easily, but I too have an intense full-time job and don't have time to go to the library to do the amount of research required to bring this up to today's FA standards. I think the drawing of the fist is enough creativity to make the poster at least potentially copyrightable; the representation of the § symbol as a meathook might or might not be. (I have no idea whether German law required registration of copyright in 1975; in order for it to be PD in the U.S. it would have to have been PD in Germany as of 1-1-1996, and I don't know how to go about determining that.) —Angr 06:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In Germany, there is no registration required. Since the enactment of the Urheberrechtsgesetz (1966), works are protected 70 years p.m.a. Greeting, -- kh80 (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, then if the poster meets Schöpfungshöhe, then it's not PD. I'd expect the drawing of the fist is enough to make it a kleine Münze, but I'm no lawyer, and the German articles are so full of legalese they make my eyes cross. —Angr 13:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Short lead, listy in some parts, undercited, and not at FA level at all. Therefore, as it is now, it should be removed. As a jurist, I feel tempted to try to improve, but my knowledge of German law is too limited, and, in order to look through German sources, I would like to have the cooperation a good German speaker. But again I do not if it can be saved within this FARC's time limits.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove - short lead, lack of references.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove, unimproved. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. The article has a lot going for it, but its dearth of inline citations is a problem (especially for the tables of Prosecutions/Convictions numbers). The lack of english references doesn't help its case, either. --maclean 05:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.