Talk:Kim Davis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 19:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll field this one. However, it would be good if I could get a second opinion as well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   • "gay or straight" might be better phrased as "same-sex or mixed-sex", because some of those in said partnerships will likely be bisexual. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

   Good point; I have removed mention of that phrase. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

   • I'm quite worried about the lede section, if I'm honest. It seems a little all-over-the-place. It starts with a big chunky paragraph, then includes some very small paragraphs consisting merely of a couple of sentences. Moreover, the lede doesn't seem particularly chronologically apt; Davis' marriages are for instance only mentioned right toward the end. My recommendation here would be for a total reorganisation and rewrite of the lede. Take a look at the lede in the GA-rated article on a similar aspect of recent LGBT-themed U.S. history, the Death of Leelah Alcorn. I would base the lede structure here on that one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

   Challenge accepted; I have re-written the lede, using that article as a structural guide. It may now need to be copy edited. Please let me know what you think. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

   Midnightblueowl, what do you think? —Prhartcom♥ 12:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

   Sorry for my recent absence (been really busy IRL). I think that the new lede is most certainly an improvement. However the middle paragraph is just too long, so my recommendation would be either to edit it down or, more plausibly, divide it into two (having four paragraphs in the lede is fine). However, there are probably prose edits to implement here too. For instance we don't need to start paragraph 2 with "Kim Davis..." when we already know her full name; "Davis" will do fine. We then have "Rowan County, Kentucky" mentioned, but we already have been told where Rowan County is in the opening paragraph so there is really no need to repeat the name of the state here. Give it a read through and get rid of a few bits and pieces such as that. "Religious awakening" is a little too emic; "conversion" would be a better bet. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

   Done, copy edited and split paragraph as directed. Yesterday I had already cut much material from this paragraph. Glad to hear the new lead is an improvement and that I was able to follow your design. —Prhartcom♥ 13:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

   Update:Thank-you for your edit to the lead and I have updated it also. I'm excited about these improvements. —Prhartcom♥ 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

   • There is some repetitive prose, such as "Kim Davis was born in Jackson, Kentucky.[8] From 1991 to 2015, Davis..."; in this case the latter "Davis" would work better as "She". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

   Changed. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

   • "County residents complained about Davis' 2011 compensation"; I don't really understand what is being conveyed here. What compensation is being referred to? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

   What's being conveyed comes immediately in the next sentence, but I have clarified the writing by moving this statement after the statements of salary. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

   • The first paragraph in "Reactions to controversy" needs to be divided up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

   Not really; the five-paragraph section is according to the following design: opposition from legal experts, support from legal experts, opposition from politicians, support from politicians, and opinions of regular citizens. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

   Update: I have cut material from the first paragraph and added a quotebox. —Prhartcom♥ 12:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

   • "Opposition to the federal ruling came from figures such as political columnists William McGurn of The Wall Street Journal and Ray Nothstine of The Christian Post" is a little clunky. Maybe just "Opposition to the federal ruling came from political columnists William McGurn of The Wall Street Journal and Ray Nothstine of The Christian Post"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

   Done; removed "figures such as". —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   • It would be nice to see the sources preserved through a web archive, but that isn't essential for passing at GA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

   I agree; I have started doing it actually, but the amount of work is daunting. I have done it in other articles before. I rechecked all the links. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

   Update: Most of the local papers, including themoreheadnews.com and the courier-journal.com do not allow archiving. —Prhartcom♥ 04:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

   • There doesn't appear to be any academic sources used here. It's not essential for passing GA, but would be a nice addition if some such sources could be found. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

   I think we have plenty of sources; as you know, there are no lack of them for this, and I'm not sure where to find scholarly articles for this subject. I am open to your specific suggestions. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

   Check out Google Scholar. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

   Thank-you; I am looking at the search results now. —Prhartcom♥ 20:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

   Update: I have finished looking at two papers submitted to the Social Sciences Research Network. Both papers use Davis as a prop to illustrate accommodation in the workplace for religious liberty objection to same-sex marriage. Any mention of these or any papers, however, should go in the Reactions section and I suspect we should not expand that part of the article right now. —Prhartcom♥ 18:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

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 can't tell you how strange it is that this article is finally stable. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

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):

   • I don't think that we have a rationale for File:Kim Davis (county clerk) refusing a marriage licence to David Ermold and David Moore.jpg that makes it usable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

   I think we do; fair use is allowed. The owner of the photo is the person in the photo, who once contributed to the article in order to ensure their name was mentioned, so therefore they approve of their name and image in the article. I am verifying with JM below. —Prhartcom♥ 10:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

   We're going to need them to release it with the appropriate licence in order for us to use it. Legally, it's not enough for them just to give their permission. I'd suggest removing it unless that can be gained. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

   Done; this image has been removed from the article. A request has been placed on the image owner's talk page, but it most likely will not be answered. —Prhartcom♥ 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

   Update: Permission was just granted for this image by the owner. I have asked the owner to submit their permission to me in an email so that I may forward the email to WP:OTRS. —Prhartcom♥ 15:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

   • The fair use rationale behind File:KimDavis.jpg seems confused. This really needs to be sorted out; I would recommend finding an editor who really knows their stuff when it comes to this sort of thing and asking them what they think of it. Hopefully we will still be able to use it, but a clear rationale needs to be found. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

   I edited the image description file to be less confused. I think it can be used because it is a government owned image, which puts it in the public domain; I am verifying with JM below. —Prhartcom♥ 10:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

   Why not have this image in the infobox? That would surely be the best place to locate it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

   Midnightblueowl, it is my belief that there are very few editors in the community that would agree to that. You are welcome to start an RfC on the article talk page and ask the community if they would agree to your suggestion. It would be yet another discussion about this article I would be obligated to take part in (feels like it would be my 99th one). Re-read JM's discussion below about this mug shot image. The writing is on the wall: It must be removed from the article. —Prhartcom♥ 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

   • We could definitely bring in some more images to make this article more visually engaging. For instance, when mentioning David L. Bunning, why don't we include an image of him (here's a copyright free one). Equally we have quotes from people like Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee; why not include pictures of them in this article too? Some quoteboxes might also be nice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
     • You could also throw in a map of Rowan County or something. I've done that in a few image-scarce articles such as The Playboy. I'm going to raise my voice against quoteboxes, though—they have their place, but are often overused. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

   Agreed about the quoteboxes, although I am considering adding a single one. It would be undue weight to have images of those two politicians who are only briefly mentioned. —Prhartcom♥ 10:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

   Update: I have added the map and the quotebox as suggested; both work very well. —Prhartcom♥ 00:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

   Update: And I have added an image of Pope Francis to the section about Davis meeting him. —Prhartcom♥ 12:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

   Update: It is now two maps. I added a new quotebox of an opposing opinion and then had to add a quotebox of a supporting opinion. —Prhartcom♥ 18:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks, Midnightblueowl. —Prhartcom♥ 10:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Update: I'm hoping that JM's advice is the second opinion you were asking for or if you still need someone else (it may take a while for anyone to step forward). All the best, —Prhartcom♥ 20:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment from JM

Prhartom asked if I would be willing to offer my view on the use of non-free content in this article. I am of the view that File:KimDavis.jpg is not justified. If it was freely licensed, I would have no objection (although for BLP reasons, I might oppose its use in the infobox). However, we must assume that it is not freely-licensed, and so its use must meet the NFCC. As is well known, there's a high bar for non-free images of living people, and this image just doesn't seem to meet it. I can see no reason to think that her mugshot is itself significant. The use of File:Kim Davis (county clerk) refusing a marriage licence to David Ermold and David Moore.jpg is, I think, more plausible. The video is a part of the story, and is discussed in the article proper. However, I would be inclined to say that it should be removed. This is for two reasons: First (and this is less important), the rationale is lacking. Second, it seems to me that the events of the video are more significant than how it looks. To be clear, though, I definitely think that there is room for reasonable disagreement about the use of the video image. You have a couple of options if you're removing the image: If we have the video available online somewhere (hosted by somewhere that has permission to do so, such as the video's creator's own YouTube channel) you could add Template:External media. Alternatively, you could contact the copyright holder and ask if they would be willing to release the image/video under a free license. I admit that removing these pictures would leave the article looking a bit bland, but, of course, that is not a good reason to keep non-free content. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Josh Milburn, many thanks for your reply; I occasionally struggle to interpret NFCC and appreciate your advice. Agreed that we will have no images before we will have any unjustified non-free images; you may have noticed that we (the community of editors here at this article including myself) have had a request for new free images in the talk page templates for some time now. My request for your advice includes any advice you can offer on how to improve the writing of the file description pages; please feel free to offer how either of them can be improved to the point of justifying the inclusion of thier image in the article. Following are two clarifying questions: Agreed that a mug shot has never been exactly what we want; we have kept other editors from moving it into the infobox and have been running with the idea that a state or county government-created image should be in the public domain. Is it not? I'm pleased that it sounds possible to keep the screen capture image provided we write the proper rationale; I have just made one attempt to do so. I am also asking the owner of the file for their permission to use it, but I feel certain that permission is granted as the owner once contributed to the article (as documented in the talk page archives and templates). While I follow what you say, that the events of the video are more significant than how it looks, this particular event described in the article discusses an object, a video, and we are simply depicting that object in the image. Can we not? Many thanks again. —Prhartcom♥ 19:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I will offer a fuller answer soon (ping me in a few days if I haven't) but as an initial note: permission to use an image is not enough; it needs to be explicitly released under a compatible license (such as CC-by-sa-3.0). Josh Milburn (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you in advance and for this important clarification. —Prhartcom♥ 19:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so in reply to a couple of your specific comments: (1) "My request for your advice includes any advice you can offer on how to improve the writing of the file description pages; please feel free to offer how either of them can be improved to the point of justifying the inclusion of thier image in the article." I'm not sure that such a page could be written for the mugshot, but if you were going to write one for the video (and I repeat that I am not convinced that the screenshot is justified) you would have to explain why seeing a screenshot of the video was important to understanding the article. This is different, of course, to the video being of significance; "x is significant" is not the same as "we need a non-free image of x". (2) "Agreed that a mug shot has never been exactly what we want; we have kept other editors from moving it into the infobox and have been running with the idea that a state or county government-created image should be in the public domain. Is it not?" We have to treat images as non-free until we have evidence to the contrary. It's possible that the image is free, but that's certainly not enough to treat it as such. The burden of proof falls on those who claim that it is free. (3) "While I follow what you say, that the events of the video are more significant than how it looks, this particular event described in the article discusses an object, a video, and we are simply depicting that object in the image. Can we not?" Non-free images can be used only if "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". The fact that you talk about an object (even if that object is absolutely central to the article) is not enough alone to prove that a non-free image of that object is going to add significantly to reader understanding. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Josh. Midnightblueowl, let us now decide how to proceed; I will do what you suggest. —Prhartcom♥ 13:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, I have responded to all your comments. Where are we with the review? — Prhartcom♥ 04:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to pass this one now. Thanks, Prhartcom! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you, Midnightblueowl! Take care and hope I see you around again soon. —Prhartcom♥ 11:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)