Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

London

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on the references and am aiming to get it to Featured Article status. Therefore, I would like to know what improvements I need to make to the article before I take it to FAC. All comments will be appreciated, no matter how long or how short. I hope you enjoy Peer Reviewing London!

Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment 1

[edit]
  • Comment. What makes London notable? Ha, I'm just kidding. However, I am concerned with many of the pictures. Although some say that they are "free" and are at Wikicommons, many deal with architectural structures, which would mean that they are 2D representations of a potentially copyrighted 3D image, which cannot be justified as "free". This is according to this listing "architecture".

The following pictures fall under this problem:

1 - Unsure how this one falls on the problem? Its an FA Picture of the London Eye, released into Public Domain by the Author under GFDL. The Helpful One (Review) 21:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 - Same for this one, the image was taken by a user who uploaded and released it into Public Domain, it's the author's image, so it isn't located anywhere else that could cause copyright problems. The Helpful One (Review) 21:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 This one was taken in 1949. I don't really believe that the person claiming to have copyright ownership does.
4 Hard to tell which architecture is copyrighted and which isn't]
  • The description of the image shows that the user has done it with their own camera. Also released into GFDL. Looking at this and that link that you gave - are you trying to say that those images have problems because they are pictures of copyrighted architecure? The Helpful One (Review) 21:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5 Same as previous.
6 Potentially a copyrighted building, especially with the sign.
7 Hard to tell which buildings could be copyrighted and which aren't.
8 Unsure of the copyright of the architecture.
9 Unsure of the copyright on the bus.
10 Unsure of the copyright on the architecture of this library.
11 Unsure of the copyright on these buildings.

The rest will probably need careful scrutiny, also. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I copy and pasted this from a recent review of london. I think he might be trying to say that you can't go around taking pictures of buildings without permission. Sounds stupid to me... 86.29.137.235 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, that why I'm also a bit puzzled at what the user is trying to say. I'm going to leave him/her a message and ask them to comment/explain what they mean. The Helpful One (Review) 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture made within the past 50 years (in some countries) or 25 years (in others) are owned by the owner in the same way sculptures are. Even photographs of them are not allowed to be distributed and can only be titled under fair use. Without providing the year of creation of the object, any pictures of them cannot be deemed viable under GFDL and it is faulty that they are hosted as being "free" when they contain pictures of architecture that hasn't been proved to be free. I hope this makes sense. Taking a picture yourself does not mean that you have the right to what is in that picture, the same way as if you took a picture of a page of a book you could not license it under GFDL unless it was free of copyright. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked another editor, and that editor doesn't think that this applies. If it did apply, may I ask what could be done to the images to make them comply with the apparent copyright violations? The Helpful One (Review) 22:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have witnessed many pictures of architecture and of copyrighted designs removed for not fitting "fair use". However, what you should do is find out the dates of the buildings or designs. If they are beyond 50 years, then you can make a claim for "free use". If they are younger than 50 years, you will have to re-describe them as "fair use" guidelines for educational purposes. The bus, for example, will probably fall under the manufacturer's design copyright. The same applies to your car. (Yes, you can take pictures of your car, but they are only free-use and cannot be sold without permission of the manufacturer) I hope this makes sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to keep the permission tags and add other tags - I can't find tags for the bus and the car - can you help? The Helpful One (Review) 11:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't add FU Tags on Commons, as it not per policy. I'm not sure that what your saying applies, as the picture are on commons, not on enwiki. The Helpful One (Review) 11:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will bring it up at Commons and see if someone can put a bunch of the generic pictures on London and the Eye up for a review based on some of the copyright issues. I'm starting to hate Commons more and more, because issues like this can't be dealt on Wikipedia anymore. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that Commons is very good at removing any image without a free license, especially featured pictures. It is my belief that these images are covered under the Panoramafreiheit - see Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama and this on Commons specifically on the UK. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now we are discussing that here if you would like to join in. The picture with the billboard does not fall under freedom of panorama. The picture of the bus would not either. The only question now are for the interiors of building and what the "London Eye" constitutes as. Regardless, Wikipedia requires that freedom of panorama pictures to state that they are under such, to name the country and law that it would apply under, etc, which I have not seen done on any of the pictures yet. This should probably be corrected. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Thanks for the invitation, but I am not an expert on copyright and will leave the discussion to those who are better versed than I. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no copyright expertise, so I spoke to a friend who does. He's supplied me with acopy of expert professional advice obtained by his employers. It's entitled "Photography of buildings – can owners of historic buildings exercise any control?". It refers to section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The section "expressly provides that it is not an infringement of copyright in a building to make a photograph of it. It is immaterial that the building is not visible from a public place or a public highway. Nor is it an infringement of any copyright in the building to distribute copies of the photograph to the public (for example in tourist brochures and advertising)."

The advice says that copyright subsists with the designer, but expires 70 years after death. The designer's copyright has not been tested in court. Folks at 137 (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2

[edit]
 Done The Helpful One (Review) 17:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3

[edit]

Ruhrfisch comments: Beautiful images, overall fairly well written, but still needs some work. I tired to point out some examples below.

  • In the lead, it is not clear if the "official population of 7,512,400" is included in the "8,278,251 (as of 2001) in the surrounding urban area." Adding these two seems to give 15.7 million, larger than "The metropolitan area is estimated to have a population of between 12 and 14 million.[4][5]" -  Done - The official population states, within the boundaries of Greater London and also the years are different. For the 12 and 14 million I have added as of 2001 to that. The Helpful One (Review) 21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant more clarifying it with an official population of 7,512,400 (as of mid-2006) within the boundaries of Greater London,[2] and [an additional] 8,278,251 (as of 2001) in the surrounding urban area.[3] The metropolitan area is estimated to have a [total] population of between 12 and 14 million (as of 2001).[4][5]
 Done - Reworded as per your suggestion, reads more easily now. The Helpful One (Review) 11:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just too confusing - is Roman London Westminster? Did, Boudica storm London or Westminster? After all this was destroyed, how did London come back to grow out to the renewed Westminster? The first London lasted for just seventeen years as The City of Westminster 2 miles (3.2 km) west of London: around AD 61, the Iceni tribe of Celts led by Queen Boudica stormed London, burning it to the ground. But as London expanded it extended to City of Westminster. - checkYFixed. The Helpful One (Review) 20:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, still confusing. I think The first London lasted for just seventeen years as The City of Westminster. Located 2 miles (3.2 km) west of London in around AD 61, the Iceni tribe of Celts led by Queen Boudica stormed the first London burning it to the ground. means something like This Londinium, 2 miles (3.2 km) west of London at the site of what is now the City of Westminster, lasted just seventeen years. Around AD 61, the Iceni tribe of Celts led by Queen Boudica stormed [this first?] Londinium, burning it to the ground. This still needs a copyedit. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Copyedited changing it so that it is more understandable. The Helpful One (Review) 11:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This, especially the second sentence, makes little or no sense: The region of Roman London is the current City of London. London as well as the city of Westminister west of London contains its Greater London section which extends 12 to 19 miles (19 to 31 kilometres). - checkY Fixed. The Helpful One (Review) 19:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • London as well as the city of Westminister west of London contains its Greater London section which extends 12 to 19 miles (19 to 31 kilometres). So this means that both London and the City of Westminster contains Greater London? Huh? Perhaps something like London contains the city of Westminister to the west, as well as all of Greater London, which extends 12 to 19 miles (19 to 31 kilometres) outward from the City of London. is clearer? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Yep, that is certainly clearer, I have changed it to that. The Helpful One (Review) 11:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a map would help the History section. I also note the image spacing leads to some white space after the Early London, Norman and medieval London, and Local government sections. Alternating right and left images might help. -  Done Moved Images around, unsure why a map is required when there is one in the Geography section? The Helpful One (Review) 21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Added the map to the History section. The Helpful One (Review) 11:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
checkYFixed All - Took some time, but I managed to fix them all and add publishers, also converted some refs into {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}. The Helpful One (Review) 12:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second look - these are examples, please check carefully that there are not other, similar problrms before FAC. These are also fairly nit-picky.

Overall seems pretty close to FAC ready, but I would be very picky before hand and clean all these up to avoid these kind of simple errors resulting in needless opposes or lots of work for you there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 4

[edit]

Should London be nominated for featured article status now? The Vandal Warrior (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to wait another day or so, so that any other users that want to comment can do so. The Helpful One (Review) 20:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the problems, and have now nominated the article for FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London. The Helpful One (Review) 12:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about A class article? With all the referencing gone into it now I'm sure it is...

It was A class, something has happened to it that made it to GA. I'm going to take it back up to A Class. The Helpful One (Review) 21:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC) -  Done I think. The Helpful One (Review) 21:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 5

[edit]

Started to read through, and I have quibbles with part of the opening section: "Since its settlement, London has been the centre of many important movements and phenomena throughout history, such as the English Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, and the Gothic Revival." With respect to the kids at Nettlesworth Primary School, I doubt that they rank as suitable authorities for the statement above. In particular, my (off the cuff) understanding is that the Industrial Revolution was based in mining, weaving and their transport needs. London is neither a mining nor a basic textile region - these were in Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and the English north and midlands. So is there any (authoritative) support for the notion that London was the "centre"? I'll continue to browse, but an initial impression is that the article needs some pruning and rephrasing to make it more accessible. But then I'm a grumpy old git. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkYFixed. The Helpful One (Review) 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 6

[edit]

Couple more bits for you:

Under Geography: "London can be defined in a number of ways, although the situation was once more ambiguous and open to periodic legal debate" - was once more? It doesn't read well to me. -  Done The Helpful One (Review) 19:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate: "London has a temperate marine climate, like much of the British Isles, with regular but generally light precipitation throughout the year—unlike the rest of the UK and even the nearby coast" - how is the rest of the UK different - heavier precipitation, less regular? -  Done (Removed) The Helpful One (Review) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Economy: "media distribution industry is London's second most competitive sector." maybe mention that central banking is the most competitive, to save anyone (else!) trawling the sources to find out ;-) -  Done Added. The Helpful One (Review) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures: The rainy Canary Wharf skyline is horrible - low quality image with visible artifacts- surely there's a better one out there? -  Done Changed. The Helpful One (Review) 20:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landmarks Section - two panoramas immediately after each other looks a little ugly to me, particularly as they aren't under a subheading - maybe put the city of london one under Architecture and Greenwich under Parks and Gardens? -  Done. The Helpful One (Review) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parks and Gardens - "Often called the Green City" - really? Could do with a stronger ref for this, otherwise I'd tend to think of it as a PR phrase, in the same way as the Museum Mile

 Done I've never heard of it being called the Green City. bsrboy (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same section - "the London Boroughs of Bexley and Bromley are noted for their open spaces " - are they? They have open and wood spaces but are they noted for them? -  Done, I don't think that they are! Removed. The Helpful One (Review) 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leisure and Entertainment - "Upper St..has more bars and restaurants than any other street in the UK."- needs a ref. -  Done -- Referenced. The Helpful One (Review) 20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same section - not sure why we go on about how the local press reviews restaurants, and locals read it?? This happens everywhere surely! -  Done Removed. The Helpful One (Review) 20:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sport - "London also has four rugby union teams in the Guinness Premiership" - except they don't play in London, so how are they "London clubs"? -  Done, added: although only the Harlequins play in London (all the other three now play outside Greater London). The Helpful One (Review) 20:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps Paulbrock (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 7

[edit]

From bsrboy (talk)

  • There are some images here that are making the article longer and aren't needed. The sunset over the river thames is an example; there are other pictures in the article, which show the City of London and Tower Bridge.
  • There are too many sub-headings. Some sub-headings can be deleted. For example, the section on transport. Do we really need it divided up like that? You could probably merge it as one section.
  • There are some two lined paragraphs. These should be merged with other 2/3 liners to create a proper paragraph or you could merge the two liner with the rest of the section.
  • Very minor one. You should make some of the news articles use the cite news template instead of cite web. I've seen some news references as cite news and some as cite web. Consistency should be reached.
  • There are a lot of links with problems on the link checker tool. These should be fixed before a FA reviewer comes along.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/London/archive4&oldid=1078796102"