Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Mississippi/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 September 2021 [1].

University of Mississippi

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 01:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes a second attempt. The previous nomination failed to pick up much commentary, likely due to an ongoing RfC which has since been formally closed. If this FAC fails as well, I'll take a long breather on this one, but hopefully it'll pick up some steam. Cheers! ~ HAL333 01:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

There is some sandwiching of text between images
- Whereabouts? ~ HAL333 19:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most significantly in Special programs and Athletics. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Addressed. ~ HAL333 02:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use fixed px size
- Could you point me towards that policy? ~ HAL333 19:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's been removed in all cases except for the large panorama image. I'm not sure how to make it still span the entire screen. ~ HAL333 23:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't duplicate captions in alt text
The FURs identify both infobox images as logos - is that correct? Why are there two? Why are both needed?
- There are actually three lol. One's the official seal and the other is generally used on marketing and branding. It's pretty common for university articles to have the two in infoboxes, but I can remove the second if you wish. ~ HAL333 19:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you do want to include both, they will need stronger FURs justifying why two logos are needed to identify the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Logo removed. ~ HAL333 13:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Re-added logos. Both are Public Domain. Fixed rationale. This is a common problem. Buffs (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Buffs, could you expand on why you marked both as public domain? Per this page, the seal (top) is as old as the university, so easily PD, but the crest (bottom, accompanying the wordmark) was designed in 1965, and per this sheet (linked from here), the university appears to still be asserting trademark rights over it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Sdkb BIG can of worms here, but the short version is that trademark is NOT copyright and vice versa even though both are related. Briefly: ignore trademarks for purposes of blanket inclusion on WP, but make sure they are labeled. Assess copyright whether or not trademark laws apply.
        
        Detailed version: Copyrights only last for a certain length of time in the US. Prior to 1989, there were varying criteria such as you HAD to include the © plus you had to register it. Over time, the rules changed to what we have today: you made it? It's copyrighted for the rest of your life + 70 years. If it was first published prior to 1926, it is no longer copyrighted based on the laws at the time. There are a whole BUNCH of criteria and legal backing, but suffice to say, it can get a little tedious/complicated (for example, you can sue to have someone stop using your copyrighted works, but if you didn't register them, you cannot sue for damages or legal fees).
        
        "But what about trademarks? You didn't even mention those" Hold on, hold on, I'm getting to it. Trademarks are another form of intellectual property, but do not enjoy the same exclusive protections of copyright. Trademarks are protected in the sense that others can't use it for the same purpose without compensation. However, they can still be considered public domain if they do not meet the threshold of originality or copyright doesn't apply. You can use such trademarked images as long as you are using them to identify the entity to which they are associated. You cannot use them to indicate support of a concept/idea unless the entity actually does. There are even bigger fines if you use them in such a fraudulent manner (fraud is a felony!). As long as trademarks remain registered, they can be protected forever. There is no time limit on those, unlike copyright. Also, for your reference, ® means it's a registered trademark. ™ means they've applied for a trademark.
        
        In the specific case of these two images, the first has been out of any possible copyright (if it ever was) for ~95 years. The second was shown in numerous publications without any asserted copyright prior to 1989, which is common. It was never intended to be a copyrighted image. They wanted it emblazoned everywhere! Putting a copyright on it would detract from that intent. See WP:Trademark for more information.
        
        Hopefully that explains it a little more in context. Buffs (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria, I'm glad we're able to sidestep the issue here with the images being public domain. Using two logos is extremely common for higher education pages—it's basically built into the infobox to have the seal on top and a wordmark (sometimes, as here, with a logo) on the bottom. If that's creating copyright issues, it may be worthwhile to start a broader discussion somewhere about it; feel free to ping me if you do so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From your own link on wordmarks: "In most cases, wordmarks cannot be copyrighted, as they do not reach the threshold of originality." Buffs (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If both images are non-free, it does create a concern around justifying multiple non-free images with effectively the same purpose - it might be possible to do so, but challenging. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Nikkimaria both images are indeed free, though both enjoy trademark protections. See explanation above + WP:Trademark. Buffs (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:1861_Lyceum.jpg: when/where was this first published?
- Image removed and replaced. ~ HAL333 19:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't need to be removed, just a little more detail given. There are no circumstances I can see where a photo created in 1861 would retain copyright. Buffs (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Buffs I'm absolutely incompetent when it comes to image licensing: what changes would be needed for the image? ~ HAL333 23:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The source you got it from and the date of first publication would make it better, but it's a PD photo. Buffs (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:James_Meredith_OleMiss.jpg: the collection identified by the tag doesn't seem to match up with what's at the source
I think you're misreading the tag. The link in the description identifies those in the photo; it's not a link to the actual photo in question.
- Link to actual photo: http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.04292/
- Link identifying individuals in the photo: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c35515
Buffs (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ole_Miss_Band_1925.jpg predates the existence of the CC licenses - why is it believed to be CC?
- I'm not sure... But I know that it was published in the university's yearbook. ~ HAL333 19:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, so has the university released its yearbooks under a CC license? Do we have a link to show that? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that's a PD image as it was published in the US prior to 1926. Fixed tag. Buffs (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting review

For ref1, remove "- University of Mississippi" in the linked title, as it's redundant. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similar for ref2, remove " – University of Mississippi" from the website field. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For ref7, remove the website field; "University of Mississippi" is an organization moreso than a website, so it shouldn't appear by itself (i.e. not part of a name for a department) in italics anywhere. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For ref19, CNN is a publisher, not a work; it shouldn't be in italics. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Refs with multiple pages appear to be using em-dashes (—), not the correct en-dashes (–). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 38 missing any sort of work/publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref45 has the page number in the title, and is missing author, and is duplicated by ref47. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref62 could probably use author (it's a little iffy for radio programs, but better to err on the side of more info rather than less). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref67 missing author. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref68 has same CNN issue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For ref 76, it looks like a free credit card–required trial, so I'm not sure if that's covered by "free registration". I'd suggest making a clip and using that instead of the image link, as clips are freely accessible. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to do that... ~ HAL333 00:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are instructions at Wikipedia:Newspapers.com#Using the "Clipping" function. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com is linked in ref76, but most other refs don't have the work/publisher linked. I personally really like to link newspapers/publishers, as it allows readers to go check out what we have to say about them and verify their reliability, but for the purposes of FAC, all that matters is that you choose either linking or unlinking and be consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For ref83, 108, and 200, use "The Clarion Ledger", since the "the" is part of the title and to be consistent with other refs. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Italicizing issue again in ref110. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fix title in ref116. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For ref117, again don't include the website in the title, and |website=trends.collegeboard.org should probably be replaced with |publisher=College Board. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct website to publisher in ref118. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref119 missing website/publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref126, NASA is a publisher moreso than a website and shouldn't be italic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same for ref130 and CNN again in 131. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For ref132, it's just "Los Angeles Times", no "the". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref133 should have American Chemical Society as publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Italics in 136, 137, and 138. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another Newspapers.com access/clips thing in 139. Lmk if you don't know how to make clips and can't figure it out. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CNN thing in 154. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 168 is a duplicate and has wrong punctuation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a source formatting thing, but the Office of Institutional Research enrollment references should probably all be merged and updated to the latest numbers. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref171 and 172 missing publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 174 has italicization issue again; it's an org moreso than a website. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Figure out whether it's The Oxford Eagle or just Oxford Eagle and fix refs as needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref180 needs publisher given you've done something similar for Ecological Society of America. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For ref181, use "U.S." rather than "US" as you've done that elsewhere. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 183, don't italicize BU. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For ref185, looking at Nobel Foundation, I think the "the" is inappropriate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref204 needs publisher for consistency. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref205 needs author. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref208, more italics fixes needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Ole Miss Alumni Association officially affiliated with the university or not? Adjust refs by adding or removing UM as publisher as needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For ref216 and 221, NCAA is publisher moreso than website/work, so same italics thing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistency between "Ole Miss Athletics" and "Ole Miss Sports" for same website. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For 225/229, ESPN shouldn't be italicized; convert to publisher like the others. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SEC needs italics fixes and probably shouldn't be abbreviated (there's a group here and 151/152). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 244 is duplicate of 163. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Title in 245 repeats website (Student Housing) and doesn't match the actual website, which uses "Residence Halls" instead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref260 needs Mississippi Historical Society as publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Integration at Ole Miss book needs some sort of identifier. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subscription required parenthetical for "Black Man Who Was Crazy Enough to Apply to Ole Miss" looks non-standard—isn't it normally an icon? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler should have Beta Beta Beta Biological Society as publisher. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN italicization is inconsistent—there are dashes in some places but not others. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having two links for Scheips looks weird, and the second is dead. What's going on there? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the archive bot is partly responsible for that (but mostly me). ~ HAL333 14:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's all. Overall, I found more than I would've hoped, but once these things are addressed, I'll be happy to support on source formatting. Someone else should do a source review covering reliability/spot checks/etc., during which they'll hopefully notice any formatting things I've missed. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thoroughness. I'll get at it. ~ HAL333 22:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my tardiness: I'll knock all of these out by the end of this business week. ~ HAL333 01:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I know it's a lot, so take your time. Also, if you have a spare moment, I'd be grateful if you might be able to stop by the Pomona College peer review and let me know if the literary sources I added have been sufficient to address your comments from the previous FAC, as I would love to have your support off the bat when I take it back again. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

This nomination has been open for well over three weeks, and while it has made progress on the important image and source reviews has attracted no general comments at all. Given this absence of ant indication of a consensus to promote I am archiving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.