Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zambezi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Zambezi

As I said when I requested peer review of this article, I know the Zambezi well and thought it deserved a high quality article. Having received very helpful comments from peer review, I've expanded the article a good amount and think it may be ready for a run past FAC. Worldtraveller 12:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support – I've also heard that the river is a favourite location for the reclusive bull sharks. I think this could be added. User:Nichalp/sg 12:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've got a mention of the Zambezi Shark, which in my zoological ignorance I didn't realise was actually just another name for the bull shark - I'll change that accordingly. Worldtraveller 17:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support - provided something s done with the majority of the red links (just don't look good in a FA). Other than that, a most ineresting and well written article. WegianWarrior 12:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, the red links do look pretty bad. I will set to work on stub creation shortly! Worldtraveller 17:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Question: is there still enough material held over from the 1911 Britannica to require the 19ll tag? If not, it should be removed; if so, should it be featurable? - Bantman 17:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I've substantially re-written large chunks of it, but I'd probably say it's still similar enough to require attribution rather than be listed just as a reference. This is the diff between when I added the 1911 text and now, although it probably makes it look more different than it is. Worldtraveller 17:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That given, I'd like to get some input from other editors before I feel comfortable supporting. I will bring it up on FAC talk. - Bantman 21:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've thought about this some more, and spent a little time comparing the article as it now stands to the 1911 EB version. In my opinion, if unattributed the current WP version would be a clear example of plagiarism, so the attribution must stay. Regrettably, that means that I'm going to have to object to this fine article. Though it seems to meet FA criteria, it does not represent sufficiently original content for us to claim as our own. - Bantman 23:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a fair criticism, but I would just like to point that while the course, tributaries and exploration sections are derived from 1911 content, wildlife, transport, economy, ecology and towns sections are new content. Worldtraveller 11:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean my vote to be taken as a criticism of your work, which is excellent. I recognize the value and range of new content, and commend it. I just don't feel that we should feature articles that have significant portions so closely adapted from public domain sources. - Bantman 23:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

No criticism of my work taken! There are precedents, though, for featured articles containing text adapted from public domain sources - Geology of the Death Valley area is one that I can think of offhand. Worldtraveller 09:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support- well-written article, though I think some of the "red links" should be written. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Victoria falls mists.jpg is under the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC license. This is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.
     • Swapped it for a public domain image. Worldtraveller 23:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. The image Image:Zambezi River near Zambezi Town.jpg is claimed as GFDL, but the copyright statement on the linked website is "personal use, and limited non-commercial use". The two are not the same, so this needs to be clarified.
     • That's my own photograph, so I've clarified on the image page that I have released this version under the GFDL. Worldtraveller 23:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  --Carnildo 21:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• As I said on the talk page, this version of the article bears little similarity to the britannica article and the 1911 article should probably only be mentioned as a reference. I'm undecided if the 1911 template should stay or go, on one hand it impies that this article is similar to the original, but on the other hand it shows how a good contemporary article can be created based on the 1911 material. As long as all the images issues are cleared up I support.--nixie 02:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - there are some nice images on other language versions of this article (I especially like the river basin map on the serbian page; it is much clearer); have you considered using any of those (copyright questions might be difficult to resolve though)? - Bantman 21:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- AlexR 08:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)