Talk:G (New York City Subway service)/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Epicgenius in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 18:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
| GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
|---|
|
|
Overall: |
 ·  ·  · 
|
On the whole close to passing, but a significant issue with one of the images needs to be addressed:
- "in the future, the Crosstown Line will become accessible" - this is WP:CRYSTAL, we can't speculate what will happen in the future.
- One word was missing, changing the meaning of the sentence. The Crosstown Line platform at Court Square will become ADA accessible as part of the 2015-2019 MTA Capital Program. That is known.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think JoeKorner can be used as WP:RS
- It is reliable and it is factually accurate. It cites its sources, "Adapted from ERA NY Division Bulletins October and November 1968." The website is factually accurate. However, I will look for another source anyway.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I ran IAbot.
6a images: The image "Service Adjustment on BMT and IND Lines Effective 1 A.M. Monday" is also provided in a reference to Flickr, it's copyright status on Flickr is "All rights reserved" - please clarify this issue. Seraphim System (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- That image was not copyrighted. I don't know why it said all rights reserved.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- What is the source for the image? Seraphim System (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- It is from an eBay listing. There is no copyright anywhere on the image.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Seraphim System: Thanks for conducting this review. @Kew Gardens 613: Thank you for doing most of the required changes while I was offline for the weekend. I think just to be safe, we can remove the non-free image about service adjustments and add a link to it instead. There's probably a Commons policy that allows these types of images, but it's unclear since there's substantial text in that image. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think there is already a reference tag to flickr. Assuming, the copyright information on flickr is correct and the copyright belongs to the account holder. But with flickr, we can't really be sure. It may be best to remove the link also, since it does not seem to be possible to identify the copyright holder with certainty with the information we have. Seraphim System (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think we should remove either. If there was a copyright holder it would be the New York City Transit Authority. The user clearly isn't the NYCTA. Since NYCTA is not claiming copyright, I think that it would be okay. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1976-New-York-City-Subway-Service-Adjustments-Poster-Sign-Vignelli-BMT-IND-NYCTA-/132228373523?hash=item1ec96cdc13:g:D3sAAOSwa~BYN3f- http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1976-New-York-Subway-Service-Adjustments-Poster-Train-Line/272682280980?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D41375%26meid%3D893d57d0791d45b3a6e5284738177933%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D8%26sd%3D282442422816 Here are the two listings.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think the question is whether the photo can be considered copyrighted. I have had this discussion with a couple of admins (over a different photograph) in the past, and I think generally we consider photos copyrighted, but sometimes we don't if they are photos of non-copyrighted work, like a photo of the Mona Lisa. I've asked Diannaa for advice, as this is not something I want to guess on. Seraphim System (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- The photos are File:New York City Transit Authority Service Adjustment Poster 1977.jpg and File:Service Adjustment on BMT and IND Lines Effective 1 A.M. Monday, Aug. 30.jpg. They require two copyright tags: one for the photograph and one for the underlying document. The source in each case is an eBay listing. The status of the underlying document is probably PD-US-no notice as stated, but whoever took the photos and uploaded them to eBay is the copyright holder of the photographs. I have nominated both images for deletion on the Commons so we will have to wait for the outcome there. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- If they cannot be saved on wikipedia, couldn't they still be used as references?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
No, because per WP:LINKVIO, we are not allowed to link to copyvio works.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)- In theory, if I sent an email to the two eBay users that photographed the two posters and asked them whether they copyrighted them and if they said no, would that be acceptable?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- On second thought I think using them as citations would be okay. I have archived the eBay one here as they go away after a while. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- It would be great if it could be referenced. I was under the belief that the image was acceptable because it was of a document, and that document was not copyrighted. I can't see the image in that. Also, I asked them just in case. It might take a day or so for them to respond. Thanks again for your work.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- It depends. Perhaps the one that is totally flat perhaps would not be creative enough for a separate copyright on the photo, but the one with the tilted orientation would be copyrightable in my opinion. Wait and see what the Commons admins have to say; I'm sure they've seen thousands of such images and will be able to give you a solid answer. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- One of the owners of the images said that it was fine. [1]
- It depends. Perhaps the one that is totally flat perhaps would not be creative enough for a separate copyright on the photo, but the one with the tilted orientation would be copyrightable in my opinion. Wait and see what the Commons admins have to say; I'm sure they've seen thousands of such images and will be able to give you a solid answer. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- It would be great if it could be referenced. I was under the belief that the image was acceptable because it was of a document, and that document was not copyrighted. I can't see the image in that. Also, I asked them just in case. It might take a day or so for them to respond. Thanks again for your work.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- On second thought I think using them as citations would be okay. I have archived the eBay one here as they go away after a while. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- In theory, if I sent an email to the two eBay users that photographed the two posters and asked them whether they copyrighted them and if they said no, would that be acceptable?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- If they cannot be saved on wikipedia, couldn't they still be used as references?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- The photos are File:New York City Transit Authority Service Adjustment Poster 1977.jpg and File:Service Adjustment on BMT and IND Lines Effective 1 A.M. Monday, Aug. 30.jpg. They require two copyright tags: one for the photograph and one for the underlying document. The source in each case is an eBay listing. The status of the underlying document is probably PD-US-no notice as stated, but whoever took the photos and uploaded them to eBay is the copyright holder of the photographs. I have nominated both images for deletion on the Commons so we will have to wait for the outcome there. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think the question is whether the photo can be considered copyrighted. I have had this discussion with a couple of admins (over a different photograph) in the past, and I think generally we consider photos copyrighted, but sometimes we don't if they are photos of non-copyrighted work, like a photo of the Mona Lisa. I've asked Diannaa for advice, as this is not something I want to guess on. Seraphim System (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think we should remove either. If there was a copyright holder it would be the New York City Transit Authority. The user clearly isn't the NYCTA. Since NYCTA is not claiming copyright, I think that it would be okay. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1976-New-York-City-Subway-Service-Adjustments-Poster-Sign-Vignelli-BMT-IND-NYCTA-/132228373523?hash=item1ec96cdc13:g:D3sAAOSwa~BYN3f- http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1976-New-York-Subway-Service-Adjustments-Poster-Train-Line/272682280980?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D41375%26meid%3D893d57d0791d45b3a6e5284738177933%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D8%26sd%3D282442422816 Here are the two listings.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think there is already a reference tag to flickr. Assuming, the copyright information on flickr is correct and the copyright belongs to the account holder. But with flickr, we can't really be sure. It may be best to remove the link also, since it does not seem to be possible to identify the copyright holder with certainty with the information we have. Seraphim System (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Seraphim System: Thanks for conducting this review. @Kew Gardens 613: Thank you for doing most of the required changes while I was offline for the weekend. I think just to be safe, we can remove the non-free image about service adjustments and add a link to it instead. There's probably a Commons policy that allows these types of images, but it's unclear since there's substantial text in that image. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- It is from an eBay listing. There is no copyright anywhere on the image.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- What is the source for the image? Seraphim System (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok thank you epicgenius sorry about the delay, I was waiting for resolution of the image situation. Regarding this line "in the future, the Crosstown Line station will become accessible." — I understand the MTA may have promised this, but it is still WP:CRYSTAL, but otherwise it looks good. Seraphim System (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I changed the tense. The MTA has provided funding but no work has been done, and the article now reflect this. epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)