Wikipedia:Featured article review/Laika/archive1

Laika[edit]

Article is still a featured article

Messages left at Zerbey and Dogs. Sandy 16:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is referenced well enough to be a FA; and also the popular culture section at the end is mostly just large ugly lists. Mlm42 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not FA material. Very listy, and when you remove the popular culture section, there's not much left. The few inline citations that are provided are not to quality sources, and the entire article needs to be cited. Sandy 16:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant improvement by Yomangani. Sandy 18:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Criterion 1. c. is definitely at fault here, and if the popular culture section was rewritten into proper paragraphs which flow and tie the whole subsections cohesively together the article would be much improved. LuciferMorgan 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with all the above points. The popular culture section needs pruning as well as rewriting - there are some very tenuous connections in there. If this doesn't get any attention, I'll come back to it when it hits FARC. Yomangani ^talk 23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed another problem with this article - the images of Laika fall foul of the change to copyright status of PD-soviet (see Commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet). I've removed one that is about to be deleted from commons, but I'm not sure whether the main one can be saved with a fair use rationale. Yomangani ^talk 01:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a picture on the NASA web site, I did write to NASA about the copyright status during the original FA nom but never got a reply. My opinion is that it is covered under the same restrictions of other NASA images and should be usable. It's unlikely that a free image of Laika is available anywhere else. Thoughts? Zerbey 20:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at that, and I think any real images are likely to originally come from the Soviet Space Program, so wouldn't be NASA images per se (they've got images of the stamps there too which certainly aren't theirs to release). However, I'm not sure about the "mock-up" photo - that could easily have been done by NASA, and judging from the fact the dog looks nothing like Laika, was probably not done by the Russians (wild speculation there). I'm trying to track down the original source for that photo at the moment. Yomangani ^talk 23:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the mock-up in the photo at NASA might be from the model in the Sputnik 2 picture in the article (you can see something similar if you look closely), in which case it comes from the Polytechnical Museum in Russia rather than NASA.Yomangani ^talk 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know I said I'd leave it until FARC, but I've nearly finished rewriting and citing this. The image of Laika (top right) seems to come from TASS, but I would think it is promotional material - any fair use experts know the correct fair use tag for this (I can write the justification, just unsure on the tag). Yomangani ^talk 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left notes for Peta and Jkelly. Peta knows animals, Jkelly knows Fair Use. Sandy 15:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we could, in theory, make a good Wikipedia:Fair use claim for Image:Laika.jpg but both best practice (and policy would mean knowing more about this image. If we're claiming "fair use", we should have some confidence in knowing whose work it is and where it comes from. The URL given as this image's "source" is just some random website that is republishing the image without providing any information about it at all. Image:Russian Sputnik 2 Space Capsule.jpg doesn't have this problem, and just needs a fair use rationale like Image:Laika.jpg already has. Image:Opportunity-Laikia-soil-target-sol-400.jpg needs to be sourced to NASA (where did we find this?). Jkelly 20:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Image:Laika.jpg must come from the Soviet Space Program originally, as there is no other possible source - before she was in the space program she was a stray and there was no after. I have not been able to find it formally stated anywhere though. I'll write a fair use rationale for the Sputnik photo and find a source for the soil sample. Yomangani ^talk 23:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (after cleanup). It's a fascinating read, well written and (AFAIC at least) captivating. Now has inline citations. --kingboyk 17:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there lead does a bit more than summarise the content of the article and is probably a bit long given the length of the rest of the article. Moving some of the detials about the dog to the body of the article would get rid of most of those cites from the lead (where I don't think they should really appear).--Peta 01:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur. Generally cites shouldn't be in the lead (which shouldn't contain anything not in the body; cites can go there), although there are exceptions (a lead in a biography of a human contains full name and date of birth, and this generally isn't repeated in the body; if citations are needed for these - as they are in the case of Bill Drummond, whose real name and place of birth have been confused in the past - that's OK I think). Anyway, it's a minor issue so whilst I concur I don't think it need prevent moving to close. --kingboyk 10:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have a problem with occasional cites in the lead: there are times when they are called for, and sometimes I ask for a cite when an extraordinary piece of info must occur first in the lead. Since I don't usually object to cites in the lead, can you point me to any guideline which would change my mind? Sandy 16:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Found: WP:LEAD says the lead "should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text". I usually expect sources only for unexpected statements or claims, and don't look for general summarized concepts in the lead to be cited. Sandy 21:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly. The lead should be carefully sourced, but the lead should also be a general summary - ergo, the material can be referenced in the body :) (with exceptions of course!) Not coming from any policy I've read, just general observation of how existing FAs do it. Citations in the lead don't seem overly common. --kingboyk 14:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, great work by Yomangani over the last few days - the article has been given a well needed makeover. Zerbey 02:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment . . . Wait just a second before we decide to keep this. I have concerns about the sources used. Three of them are self-published websites, and as such, fail WP:RS. The sites in question are the ones at novareinna.com, Robin Chase (angelfire? really?), and Sven Grahn. These may be wonderfully written websites, but, like I said, they are self-published, so have no editorial oversight and are thus in violation of WP policies. Can someone find some more reliable sources to replace them with? I doubt it would be hard; merely a trip to the local library (or Google Books) should suffice. After that, I think the article should definitely be kept. It's a great example of the kind of thing Wikipedia does best. — BrianSmithson 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close FAR as keep. Only outstanding issue is Fair Use on image, and that is being addressed. Sandy 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no need to go to the removal phase now. Great work. --Peta 01:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. agreed. Mlm42 08:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]