Talk:Women's health/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I've read the article and will take this on. Given that the article is visibly far above the required standard, my comments will be few and brief. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm overwhelmed by your generosity! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead: ok; layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The referencing is probably to FA standard.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Referencing is comprehensive. Spot checks all fine.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No sign of it. Other sites have made use of the article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The coverage is indeed comprehensive as would be required for FAC.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There has been some recent editing by nom, but it has not been controversial.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'm personally not sure the logos add much to the article, but they are relevant and with wikilinked captions lead usefully to related materials.
	7. Overall assessment.	Happy to pass this excellent article.

Questions

Logos

• Millennium Development Goal 5 (maternal health) traces to MDGs.jpg which is licensed as an editor's own work. Can this be correct?

Only in that I created MDG5.jpg out of the more complex MDGs.jpg. I agree that it is odd that that is labelled "own work" unless the editor is the original graphic artist. The original is at UN Millenium Goals and many other relevant UN materials. It is my understanding that the UN actively encourages the use of its materials for educational purposes, which this is.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Since we doubt that the editor is the original graphic artist, the license appears to be wrong. Ideally we'd locate the UN statement licensing its materials freely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

My recollection is that I checked that at the time. I will see what I can come up with. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

As is often the case, it is a bit of a grey area. The UN has a blanket policy "The United Nations grants permission to Users to visit the Site and to download and copy the information, documents and materials (collectively, “Materials”) from the Site for the User’s personal, non-commercial use". Very few websites specifically address the context of Wikipedia. WHO is similar "can be used for private study or for educational purposes without permission". Every WHO programme I have worked with encouraged dissemination of material for obvious reasons. Other related icons bear {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} with the statement "The official icons of the sixty seven MDGs are copyleft and can be freely re-edited and used for information about the MDGs". But I am not sure of the source of this statement, to date.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Re Logos. It was a struggle to find illustrations that actually add to the article. Since the focus is on the global perspective and the UN programmes are a powerful initiative and make a good focal point.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought as much, and agree they can stay, but we should make sure (specially if FAC is in mind) they are properly licensed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The SDGs are allowed to be used for informational uses (primarily illustrative, and not intended to raise funds). If the MDGs are similar (I can't find guidelines for their icons), this wouldn't be sufficient for Commons; it might be ok for Wikipedia with a non-free usage rationale. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The image could be moved to Wkipedia and deleted from Commons. Generally logos have been allowed for limited usage if illustrating an article about the organisation or programme. Thanks for the link I knew I had seen it somewhere. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess we should do that then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears that is not that easy since Commons files used on WP pages are automatically added to WP files, so one cannot upload the identical image. Do you know how one can have the file on WP and not Commons without deleting the Commons file and then starting again from scratch? Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I will also contact UN directly --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess you could upload a very slightly cropped image to WP, and ask for the other image to be deleted as a duplicate! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I contacted the stated author, who clarified that they are not the actual author amd pointed to the following as the permission: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ so I updated the file. does that change anything? Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The non-commercial statement makes it clear that it shouldn't be on Commons. We can clearly use it with an NFUR on Wikipedia, so we can either do that or remove it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Also found the following statement on the SDG website: "You can share the following image with your friends on your social networks, or post them on your website or blog, to raise awareness of the importance of the key events happening in 2015."--Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, it's non-commercial only. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I just received an email from the UN permissions office authorising their use. I will add that to the files shortly.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well done, sorry it was a hassle but I'm sure it has saved a fuss later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Family planning

• The Malaysia family planning image traces to Stephen Codrington's website, which says the images are free for non-profit purposes; the Commons page says his permission has been given. I think this requires an OTRS ticket for Commons.

Not sure how big a problem that is? I took in good faith at the time especially since it has been widely used. Did you want me to initiate this? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That would be great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a huge backlog there and it may take many months to resolve Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Um, we can either just go ahead since that's in hand (same wd apply to the other image), or more safely hide the images until ready. I doubt you'd get through FAC with these issues, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Contacted author directly and added writen permission to file --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that one's done then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Other comments

Since the lead section has five paragraphs, I don't see how this complies with WP:LEAD, one of the GA criteria, which sets the ceiling for GAs at four paragraphs. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I've closed up the last two paragraphs for formal compliance, though frankly I'm half inclined to do a Jimmy Wales here and ignore the rules when they don't help too much, it is the most minor of all imaginable infractions, and the (old) paragraphing matched the article's structure well. Whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Reflecting the structure of the article was the guiding principle in the lead - I don't think a four paragraph rule works well in comprehensive articles. Maybe it should be revisited. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)