Talk:Keep Calm and Carry On/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 04:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

There are some issues with the prose, especially one particularly bad sentence.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "The poster and its parodies have appeared in almost every channel open to graphic design and graphical parody." - what does this sentence mean? Also, the lead doesn't fully summarize the article. What does "uniform device" mean? What does "The company is now trying to trademark globally in the United States and Canada" mean? (to me it seems rather contradictory to say you're doing something globally in two countries)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Parodies section might need more sources. More seriously though, "The poster and its parodies have appeared in almost every channel open to graphic design and graphical parody." has no citation.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I am assuming the disputed edit that was recently reverted by Irondrome is resolved. There seems to be an ongoing dispute over this edit.

   Resolved

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The third image is missing a non-free use rationale for this article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

    On hold while the above issues are addressed.

I've attempted to rectify every issue you mentioned with the exception of the free use rationale. Please have another look at the article as i think I have remedied the issues. Retrolord (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue with NFCC on the second (sorry that I said third earlier) will fail the article if it can't be rectified.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly how sure how to do it, but given the picture is from 1935 and was government property, i don't think there is any applicable copyright. How do i write a fair use rationale for this type of image? ★★RetroLord★★ 12:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The tour poster is clearly copyrightable; the existing rationale for another article is a good place to start as well as WP:NFCC.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not to sure about how to do these fair use rationales, so would it b eok if i removed the image? It doesnt add that much to the section. ★★RetroLord★★ 01:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether you want to remove the image or not is completely up to you; as I said I'm no expert on this topic.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Image removed, are there any further issues to deal with? ★★RetroLord★★ 12:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Planning for the posters started in April 1939; by June designs were prepared, and by August 1939, they were on their way to the printers, to be placed up within 24 hours of the outbreak of war." - a rather clunky sentence in my opinion ("they" might be confused easily, and "to the printers" is sorta not formal). Still would like more citations in the parodies section (especially for "Most adopt a recognisably similar typeface and layout, but change the base colour, slogan, and sometimes the icon." (esp. the "most" part - that's a rather big claim to make)). Other than that it's pretty close to passing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be able to fix these problems over the next day or so. ★★RetroLord★★ 20:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAALRIGHTY. Firstly, for the citations for the most part, If you want you can reference a google image search where the first 15,000 results will all have the same typeface, other than that i'm not sure how we can reference that fact. It's true but isn't documented anywhere as it is just so obvious. ★★RetroLord★★ 00:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Secondly,how about this rewrite of the sentence "Planning for the posters started in April 1939; by June designs were prepared, and by August 1939, production had begun, and the posters were ready to be placed up within 24 hours of the outbreak of war" How about that? ★★RetroLord★★ 00:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What else needs working? ★★RetroLord★★ 00:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that sentence rewrite would suffice. As for the sourcing issue, it's an admittedly inconvenient aspect of WP:V, because WP:NOR dictates that we must be able to cite reliable sources for something like this (although it's a week proposition, some might argue that what you find on the Google Images may not take into account what's not been posted in the Internet).--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is very reasonable to assume that Google images provides a realistic sample of the posters. I've also added the rewrite. Do you want me to ref a google search for the "most" claim? ★★RetroLord★★ 00:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"Most" is a strong claim to make; I don't believe search engine results would constitute a reliable source in my personal opinion (although WP:RS does not make mention of search engines specifically), as they may be subject to change, and it may disproportionately show some parodies/images over others.

Actually, now I come to think of it, I don't really see how this claim is of much value to the article, because I would not consider it too out-of-ordinary (though that's just my personal opinion).--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll remove it then? ★★RetroLord★★ 00:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I said, it's just my personal opinion. If you decide that you concur with that opinion, then go ahead. Remember, I'm not the expert in this area, you are.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed ★★RetroLord★★ 02:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have now taken a deeper examination of the parodies section in terms of sourcing, and I hate to keep this held up, but I actually see major sourcing problems with the first part of the second sentence in that section. The Mario article makes no mention of the poster, nor does the article on the wedding.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think these are suitable references?

For mario http://www.google.com.au/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&rlz=1C1CHLW_enAU511AU511&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=PoC7aKR-sVORxM:&imgrefurl=http://www.typopop.com/mario---keep-calm-p57/&docid=TekFWcrfB0SEKM&imgurl=http://www.typopop.com/image/cache/data/Keep%252520Calm/Mario-700x989.jpg&w=700&h=989&ei=0PI7UZ7EFtGHmQW2l4HgDQ&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:18,s:0,i:134&iact=rc&dur=368&page=1&tbnh=193&tbnw=137&start=0&ndsp=22&tx=55&ty=103 and http://www.google.com.au/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&rlz=1C1CHLW_enAU511AU511&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=q2rFrbndamy8dM:&imgrefurl=http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/keep-calm-and-love-mario-53/&docid=VdibeYKtmbHUvM&imgurl=http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-love-mario-53.png&w=600&h=700&ei=0PI7UZ7EFtGHmQW2l4HgDQ&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:27,s:0,i:170&iact=rc&dur=1268&page=2&tbnh=195&tbnw=164&start=22&ndsp=21&tx=37&ty=45

For the wedding http://www.google.com.au/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&rlz=1C1CHLW_enAU511AU511&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=OJxRs752KvP8qM:&imgrefurl=http://www.zazzle.com/the_royal_wedding_poster-228251234568800109&docid=kcBmZkJtA0C3iM&imgurl=http://rlv.zcache.com/the_royal_wedding_poster-re26a5467d43247f6938455d26987b286_aiktu_400.jpg&w=400&h=400&ei=K_M7UdexI8qJmwWqsYGYAQ&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:9,s:0,i:107&iact=rc&dur=758&page=1&tbnh=168&tbnw=170&start=0&ndsp=20&tx=54&ty=41 and http://www.google.com.au/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&rlz=1C1CHLW_enAU511AU511&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=4q94whAgJhytUM:&imgrefurl=http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/royal-wedding-posters-prince-william-kate-middleton-evoke-sex-pistols-wwii-propaganda-article-1.123063&docid=m2ES3OrKy72pyM&imgurl=http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.116252.1313962718!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/alg-wedding-posters-jpg.jpg&w=635&h=474&ei=K_M7UdexI8qJmwWqsYGYAQ&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:0,s:0,i:80&iact=rc&dur=1893&page=1&tbnh=190&tbnw=249&start=0&ndsp=20&tx=171&ty=129

Can I add those in? ★★RetroLord★★ 02:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but only if you cite the actual URLs (click "visit page") rather than the URLs Google supply (for example, in the first one you'd link typopop.com rather than google.com.au).--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a comment, from the pov of WikiProject Sociology, on what we would like to see in this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the length of time this review has been running, and the number of unaddressed issues, the article is failed for now, with no prejudice against a re-nomination in the future once the issues are addressed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)