Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria

WT:FA?

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 56 days may be automatically archived by .

Help me understand public domain images[edit]

I'm grooming American Bank Note Company Printing Plant for FAC. I'm not sure File:Faile Mansion.jpg will pass the image review for licensing. I found an even better image of the same scene (https://www.wikiart.org/en/david-johnson/west-farms-the-t-h-faile-esq-estate-1873), but the same question applies.

I've read Wikipedia:Public domain but still can't quite get my head around all the details. In the later case, the painter (David Johnson) is known to have died in 1908, so it's provably "70 years after death", but still the sticky question of what it means to be published. On top of all that, I gather that enwiki and commons have different interpretations of this. Can anybody provide clarity if these two images would pass muster at FAC? RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 70 years after death matters for a painting by a US artist. What you want is ideally to prove publication before 1928 so template:PD-US-expired applies; alternatively (but possibly more difficult) publication before 1977 without copyright registration (for template:PD-US-no-notice) or before 1963 without renewal of copyright (for template:PD-US-not-renewed). In the case of a painting, my understanding is that exhibition counts as publication, so you preferably want to find evidence that the painting was exhibited before 1928. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

exhibition counts as publication seems at odds with WP:PD#Publication. RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I was sure that was somewhere in our copyright guidance, but I can't find it anywhere either here or on commons so maybe I just hallucinated that. In any case, publication before 1928 is still the key thing you want to demonstrate here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_US#Before_1978 has some background that might be helpful - while it's written about statuary, the underlying case law is mostly broader. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria that page does not exist. RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, which says that Additionally, exhibiting, displaying, or releasing the work in a public place where anyone can make unrestricted copies of the work could publish the work - this is exactly what I was remembering so thanks to Nikkimaria for proving that I'm not going mad Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the painting is better, though it is in colour. Roy, you added "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1928." when you uploaded the photo in 2020. Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did that, based on my understanding at the time of how PD worked. But I'm also aware that people dig deeper at FAC, so I'm trying to make sure this will stand up to the increased scrutiny. RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Content assessment has an RfC[edit]

Wikipedia:Content assessment has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Schierbecker (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Length[edit]

Currently, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length says 250 to 400 words for most FA's. But these are just suggestions. Some articles also have considerably higher word counts for their leads. An example would be India, although its FAR was a long time ago. I wonder if we could get a more precise guideline similar to Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline. Something like a table? Recommended: 250-400. Ok:400s. Acceptable:500s. Above 600:should be trimmed? Bogazicili (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you check that MOS talk page, you'll find a substantial discussion on that topic from not so long ago. FWIW, the size guideline is also rather controversial, as guidelines go. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly oppose adding anything. Imo many leads are too short (but some too long), & FA ones should on the whole tend to the long end of ranges. I thought the lead of Narwhal (now withdrawn) too short, which the nom disagreed with. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod:, maybe many leads are too short because the current wording ("Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words") is too restrictive? I checked Earth, which went through a recent FAR. It has 575 words. So I'm guessing 500's are ok, depending on the topic. I am also asking because I recently changed the lead in Turkey. Bogazicili (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant leads in general. "Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words" may well be true, but unfortunately these days "Most featured articles" are on micro-topics where a short lead is justified, if not unavoidable. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask a different way. If an article has a lead with a word count in 500s, would that cause an unsuccessful FAR by itself? Bogazicili (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 250-400 words mentioned by MOS:LEADLENGTH is plainly descriptive rather than a recommendation, let alone a prescription; I don't get paid the coordinator big bucks to make these decisions, but I cannot see how not fitting that guideline would be considered a valid reason to oppose promotion or to delist an existing FA. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

Note that there is a proposal in Village pump regarding the consistency requirement for short and long inline citations: [1] This would concern FA criteria 2c. Bogazicili (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance[edit]

Hi. Is there a place in the instructions to add, "FAC nominators are expected to continuously maintain articles they nominated"? I just read that yesterday at WP:FASA, about 15 years after the fact. Pardon me if I missed it. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such instruction because there is no such requirement for an article to become featured. However, an editor won't get a second star at FASA for "saving" an FA that they previously got promoted and then ignored, which what that statement at WP:FASA is trying to communicate. If you don't like the way it is worded, a discussion at WT:FASA would be more appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]