| Revision as of 20:54, 30 April 2008 editHemlock Martinis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,318 edits →Hillary Rodham Clinton: Support.← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:57, 30 April 2008 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,045 edits →Hillary Rodham Clinton: clfNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| ::::::Okay, re-fixed so the Gallup polls are back to the original px size. The upright switch is being used in all instances where the image would benefit from the switch. The only MOS issues I found were the lead image being smaller than 300px and the soon to be deleted portrait had a px size and was not using upright. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | ::::::Okay, re-fixed so the Gallup polls are back to the original px size. The upright switch is being used in all instances where the image would benefit from the switch. The only MOS issues I found were the lead image being smaller than 300px and the soon to be deleted portrait had a px size and was not using upright. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Fine by me! <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | :::::::Fine by me! <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| : This is a new FAC; ''per previous'' isn't actionable. Please state actionable objections per ] ''based on the current article'', so nominators can address them. ] (]) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Once again, the article is fit to be featured and fulfills all of the requisite criteria. --] (]) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | * '''Support'''. Once again, the article is fit to be featured and fulfills all of the requisite criteria. --] (]) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:57, 30 April 2008
Hillary Rodham Clinton
- Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton/archive2
- Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton/archive3
| Toolbox |
|---|
Support I feel that this article has improved so much since last year that it should be featured. It's already has "good article" status, but I think it's a great article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wasted Time R 1527
- LukeTH 656
- Tvoz 227
- K157 137
- Restart: old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I think all of the MoS, sourcing, citing, etc. issues raised in the nom before restart have been addressed. I believe the article shape is appropriate and the article will be stable unless and until she is elected president (unlikely to happen as it stands now), at which point we would deal with it accordingly. In general I believe the article merits FA status. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: The image issues originally posed were addressed. I'm not sure about Image:Hillary Clinton first lady portraitHRC.jpg, as a work merely commissioned by the federal government might not necessarily be properly considered a "work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States", as it's tagged (the source website disclaimer asserts the artist retains copyright). I, however, don't have sufficient information (i.e. I don't know of the statute defining "employee of the EO") to make a firm assertion one way or another. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- EXCELLENT POINT! This is NOT a work of an employee of the Executive Office. This picture needs to be replaced in the article and the copyrighted image removed from Misplaced Pages. — BQZip01 — 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just about every First Lady article I've seen includes their official White House portrait. Why is this one considered different? Or do they all have to go? Wasted Time R (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I all depends how those are used, how they were acquired, etc. Those who were before the advent of film have little other way to illustrate their image and most of those copyrights ended a long time ago. Others may have been works of a government employee and, therefore, are public domain. Others still may simply have not elected to maintain their copyright on the images. I don't know specifics about the others, but this one needs to go IAW Misplaced Pages policy. — BQZip01 — 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I found a long discussion of this issue from a couple of years ago at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. Resolution was unclear, but none of the portraits they were talking about have been deleted, as far as I can tell. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- If this discussion is going to continue (which is certainly fine), let's take it to the talk page so the FAC is kept to comments germane to this article. Analysis of other images is getting too tangential. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I found a long discussion of this issue from a couple of years ago at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. Resolution was unclear, but none of the portraits they were talking about have been deleted, as far as I can tell. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I all depends how those are used, how they were acquired, etc. Those who were before the advent of film have little other way to illustrate their image and most of those copyrights ended a long time ago. Others may have been works of a government employee and, therefore, are public domain. Others still may simply have not elected to maintain their copyright on the images. I don't know specifics about the others, but this one needs to go IAW Misplaced Pages policy. — BQZip01 — 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just about every First Lady article I've seen includes their official White House portrait. Why is this one considered different? Or do they all have to go? Wasted Time R (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- EXCELLENT POINT! This is NOT a work of an employee of the Executive Office. This picture needs to be replaced in the article and the copyrighted image removed from Misplaced Pages. — BQZip01 — 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per previous. I also strongly object to this nomination being restarted. There were many oppose !votes on the last one that will likely not be included again. — BQZip01 — 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Images in this article do not meet sizing requirements IAW WP:MoS. Please fix.— BQZip01 — 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)- fixed Granted, the removal of the image sizing for the gallup polls makes them virtually unreadable and may actually be exempt from the MOS per my interpretation of WP:MOS#Image size. --Bobblehead 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the MoS "other cases where a specific image width is appropriate include (but are not limited to) images with extreme aspect ratios, detailed maps, diagrams or charts" exemption is why I was using the fixed px size for all the charts. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- No icons per WP:FAC instructions, please. There was a time when I bothered pointing out MOS size issues, but FAC (unfortunately) has been apathetic and dismissive in the past. Indeed, images with particular detail, dimensions, etc. which would be impaired at 300 pixels or less are exempt. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Concur completely with pixel sizing as stated by WTR, but please use the UPRIGHT switch for portraits where applicable. — BQZip01 — 19:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, re-fixed so the Gallup polls are back to the original px size. The upright switch is being used in all instances where the image would benefit from the switch. The only MOS issues I found were the lead image being smaller than 300px and the soon to be deleted portrait had a px size and was not using upright. --Bobblehead 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fine by me! — BQZip01 — 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, re-fixed so the Gallup polls are back to the original px size. The upright switch is being used in all instances where the image would benefit from the switch. The only MOS issues I found were the lead image being smaller than 300px and the soon to be deleted portrait had a px size and was not using upright. --Bobblehead 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Concur completely with pixel sizing as stated by WTR, but please use the UPRIGHT switch for portraits where applicable. — BQZip01 — 19:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- No icons per WP:FAC instructions, please. There was a time when I bothered pointing out MOS size issues, but FAC (unfortunately) has been apathetic and dismissive in the past. Indeed, images with particular detail, dimensions, etc. which would be impaired at 300 pixels or less are exempt. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the MoS "other cases where a specific image width is appropriate include (but are not limited to) images with extreme aspect ratios, detailed maps, diagrams or charts" exemption is why I was using the fixed px size for all the charts. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- fixed Granted, the removal of the image sizing for the gallup polls makes them virtually unreadable and may actually be exempt from the MOS per my interpretation of WP:MOS#Image size. --Bobblehead 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is a new FAC; per previous isn't actionable. Please state actionable objections per WP:WIAFA based on the current article, so nominators can address them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Once again, the article is fit to be featured and fulfills all of the requisite criteria. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)