Talk:Paul O'Grady/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CookieMonster755 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Passed.

• Hello, and thank you for nominating this as a good article! I will be assessing your article within the next 7 days, and hope to communicate with you than! CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

---

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	—	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Follows MoS guidelines	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	All references are reliable.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All citations lead to reliable sources. There was one statement that had the "Citation needed" tag, but besides that, all citations are reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	—	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	—	Pass
(b) (focused)	All context is related to subject of article.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
—	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit war as far as I can see.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Free image, perfect.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	captions are suitable.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Passed 6 good criteria.

CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: CB2288 Hello! I am happy to review your article. However, this article may fail the GA criteria. According to the criteria Section 1.3, it says an article will immediately fail GA status if It contains copyright infringements. The reason why the article may contain copyright infringements is because the photograph in the infobox claims it is used under CC by 2.0, and was verified by MGA73 on November 1, 2009. However, I checked the image on the original source, and it claims it's copyrighted. This could be a copyright infringement, but I did not want to close this as "failed" because I would like your comments, and to see if this is a copyright infringement or not. Was this licensed under CC by 2.0 when this was uploaded, and the author later changed the licences later on? I look forward to collaborating with you on this matter. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I reviewed File:Paul O'Grady, April 2009 cropped.jpg on November 1, 2009. The file is a crop of File:Paul O'Grady, April 2009.jpg and that file was reviewed on May 10, 2009 by Commons:User:FlickreviewR so it is 100 % sure that the file was licensed freely in 2009. So there is no problems with the copyright of the file. --MGA73 (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

MGA73 & CB2288 — I checked with Wikimedia Commons guidelines, and your right. At the time of the upload to Wikimedia, the licencor made it available under CC by 2.0. However, after it was uploaded, the licencor changed the status to copyrighted it. However, having it on Commons is not a copyright infringement. According to these guidelines, CC licenses are not revocable. This article still qualifies as GA. I will continue to review the article, to see if it passes GA. Glad we got that qualified. Cheers! CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)