Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rongorongo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Rongorongo

previous FAC (19:02, 9 April 2008), earlier FAC
Toolbox

Self-nominator: All previous issues have been addressed. The main remaining problem had been the unresolved copyright status of the images, under the mistaken impression that this depends on whether an object is 2D or 3D. (A coin lit up and framed in an original way is not PD; the same coin copied on a scanner is PD. The 2D thing is a rule of thumb, not a legal principle.) Although nearly all the photos were ineligible for copyright (original copyright long expired, no original work in their reproduction), this takes months to resolve at Commons, so I have removed the numerous thumbs and moved two of the images to Wiki-en with Fair Use tags (they are actually Template:PD-ineligible). Another objection had been the length of the article; it has now been split in two. —kwami (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Serious lack of footnotes to most paragraphs throughout. In the past FAC, Ealdgyth said: "I do note that large sections of the article are lacking inline citations, at least to page numbers of the various sources." - This has not changed. Fails criteria 1c of the FA criteria. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Isn't the lack of footnotes due to the use of author-date referencing? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In that case, footnotes should not be used. It's either Harvard referencing, or footnotes - not both. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The footnotes are being used as actual footnotes (i.e. for commentary), not as a referencing system. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, You've got me now. I'm more used to the footnote system being used for references, since I've come across very few articles on Wikipedia using Harvard referencing. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. All I can say is: Wow! I tried using this article months ago for a story I wrote about the Rapanui, and it was all but worthless. This is better than anything that can be found in most libraries! I'll say support, but I don't regularly participate in FAC discussions and am not terribly familiar with the criteria, so feel free to disregard. It's definitely a fine piece of work. Fishal (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose until image problems are resolved. Images such as Image:Rongorongo Qr3-7 color.jpg and Image:Anaokeke.jpg are clearly 3D and eligible for copyright. If you want to use something like this, trace the script to make it into a PNG/SVG and get rid of all the lighting/surface irregularities. Mangostar (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The response on Commons to your earlier complaint of Anaokeke was "Looks two-dimensional to me!". Under your interpretation, all of the photos of paintings on Wikipedia would have to be deleted, since they all have lighting, and they're all three dimensional (they all have texture, if only from the canvas). Do we need to make a PNG tracing of The Last Supper? (Look, I can see a crack in the plaster—that makes the object 3D, so it's copyrighted!) The legal principle is not whether the object is 3D (that's only a rule of thumb), but: Did the photographer frame and light the object in such a way as to add originality to the photo? A photograph of a two-dimensional surface, with only the lighting necessary to expose the film, does not qualify for copyright. (The Last Supper is painted on a building, so it is also clearly a 3D object, but it's common sense that the photo is of one approximately 2D surface of that object. And in the Qr3-7 photo the lighting is that of the display case in the museum, and not a contribution by the photographer.) Neither, for that matter, does a scan of a fully 3D object qualify for copyright. Commons suggests that we crop images of paintings of their frame, to avoid the possibility of a problem. The Qr3-7 photo follows this advice and is cropped of all its edges. (I've noticed that in addition to claiming that surfaces are three dimensional, you believe that pre-World War I photos are ineligible for PD because they're "recent".) If we followed your advice, we'd have to strip a large number of articles of their FA status. kwami (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, why is Image:Roro-I01frottis.gif marked GFDL? Did the uploader actually make the rubbing? If not, it's either copyrighted or PD - an uploader can't make a PD image GFDL... Mangostar (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The uploader works with the archives the image came from, but you're right. As a rubbing, it's ineligible for copyright regardless. Tag changed. kwami (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Last thought: the 2D reproduction is a legal principle, in that it was specifically established in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. in at least one US district court, and hasn't been departed from since. Mike Godwin has specifically advised Wikipedia users not to claim that photos of coins are PD, without specifying that distinctions should be drawn between the two types you cite. (I could dig this up if you want.) The threshold of originality required for copyright protection in the US is extremely low. The merger doctrine comes into play where an idea simply cannot be separated from an expression, but here it is inapplicable--for example, this problem could be solved by vectorizing the text alone, as I have suggested. Mangostar (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict] On Commons they specifically state that a coin imaged with a scanner is not eligible for copyright. It's not the dimensionality of the object, but originality. It's simply assumed that there is insufficient originality in a photograph of a painting to qualify for copyright.
Also, a tracing is not a viable option. Since the script is undeciphered, no-one can know what they're supposed to be tracing, and there is therefore a concern that any tracing would miss essential details, or introduce errors. This is a serious issue with attempts at decipherment. An illustration of what the script looks like needs to be a photo, not a tracing. As I said above, the edges have been cropped, and the lighting is environmental, so this is simply a photo of a 2D surface. kwami (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
If you insist, I can certainly make a case for Fair Use. kwami (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. Reading the court case, under US law, the issue is originality. The only time "two dimensional" appears is in a report of MOMA admitting that a photo of a 2-D PD work of art "might not qualify" for copyright. That isn't the court's wording. They also make the point that a cast of a 3-D object does not qualify for copyright, even with minor variations from the original. They "must be original, that is, the author's tangible expression of his ideas". When the "point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity [c]opyright is not available". Posing a statue and giving it dramatic lighting is copyrightable, but photographing the artist's signature on the statue is not. kwami (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Very interesting article. But should you not have footnote citations to specifically source material? Or am I wrong that this is preferred? Also, I don't like the colon in the lead and will change it. Revert if you like. I will look through article more as it seems very good. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

O.K. It's a little confusing at first but I see what you have done reference-wise. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I personally find it disruptive when footnotes are used both for notes and for references. I always want to read the notes, but flipping down to the footnotes just to find it's a page reference is really annoying. Thanks for your corrections. kwami (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the problem I am having now is that the article does not seem to be well sourced. Phrases like "tradition has it" are not sourced. There are so many "is said to have" (see my comment on talk page) that even though a source is given, it does not clarify. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've checked all instances of those wordings, and they're all supported by the following citations. kwami (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I thought this should have succeeded last time around, and don't have any remaining comments that were not taken care of in the previous FAC. Now that more parts have been split out into subarticles, one could almost nominate the whole collection. Anyways, per Fishal above this painstakingly researched and well-written article provides the best encyclopaedic treatment of the topic you're likely to come across anywhere. Nice work, kwami & co. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OpposeComments

  • Use {{harvnb}} for references instead of the way you are doing now
  • Really large image in "Published corpus" — needs something done about that. Perhaps a thumbnail and center it?
  • "References" looks really strange, at least to me, because of {{Aut}} usage and no bullets before each item

Gary King (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You oppose because I've followed Wikipedia formatting conventions? Are you serious?
Anyway, your citation template is ungainly, the normal-sized image is part of the text, which would be disrupted if it were a thumbnail, and the "really strange" reference format is found throughout Wikipedia. Since when do references need bullets? kwami (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen inline references like what is used in this article. Please point me to where it says in the Manual of Style that this is appropriate. Gary King (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to strike out my oppose because this is just beyond what I've seen. It's such a mysterious way of doing it... Gary King (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The MoS directs the reader to Author-date referencing for how this is done. That gives "(Smith 2008:1)" in its first example. kwami (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - A very interesting, thorough, well organized article that is clearly written. There are some idiosyncratic aspects to the style, but nothing that interferes with the pleasure of reading it. (I fixed aspects that bothered me the most.) –Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Disappointed after all this time to see poor writing in the lead:

    1. figures or words for two-digit numbers? In any case, read MOS, which insists on one type for centuries. The infobox hints at more precise chronological info than a whole century. And see further down in the article.
    2. "Although some calendrical and perhaps genealogical information have been identified"—Perhaps? What is the uncertainty? It's unclear.
    3. ", even these inscriptions cannot actually be read."—Remove "actually", unless you're contrasting with the fictional, maybe? Even what inscriptions? Unclear connection with the foregoing statement.
    4. "some ... some". Then a tiny sentence. After that, ungrammatical.
    5. "There are a few very short petroglyphs which may also be rongorongo."—There are? Fuzzy.

Look, this is not FA material. Sorry; please have a good copy-editor lift it to professional standard first.

And at random further down:

    1. "Due to its scarcity"—two very similar wordings.
    2. "The fact that the islanders were reduced to inscribing driftwood, and were extremely economical in their use of wood, may have had consequences for the structure of the script (Fischer 1997:383)."—Can you briefly explain what effect this might have had on the script?
    3. Snake: "German ethnologist Thomas Barthel believed that carving on wood was a secondary development in the evolution of the script based on an earlier stage of incising banana leaves or the sheaths of the banana trunk with a bone stylus, and that the medium of leaves was retained not only for lessons but to plan and compose the texts of the wooden tablets (Barthel 1971:1168)." Split into two?
    4. The left-side image is messing with the formatting of the text and the lower image.
    5. "Other glyphs look like sea turtles, fish, crayfish, grubs, and so on."—Last three words: MOS discourages such usage as far too informal. Try "such creatures as ...".

Needs a good copy-editor. TONY (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to ask a question here, but I do not understand all your comments above. Here is an example: "Figures or words for two-digit numbers? In any case, read MOS, which insists on one type for centuries." I just read MoS and it said (seemed to say) either 20th century or 20th century was correct. Am I misunderstanding? –Mattisse (Talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Tony, some good points, but the lead is an introduction. It is not the place to explain things in detail. If comments are "fuzzy", they are explained in the text. The centuries have been spelled out as you suggest (I prefer that as well). "Actually" contrast reading with interpreting, though it is not necessary here. [No, I take that back. It is required here. We're saying the contents of some texts can be identified, which most people would assume means they can be read.] This takes care of objections (1), (2), (5). The word "these" makes (3) perfectly clear in context. As for (4), I agree that "some ... some" is awkward, and it's been changed. However, there is nothing wrong with the occasional tiny sentence, especially when its contrasting length has a contrasting function, as here. Following that, I fail to see what is ungrammatical.
Second set: (1) Which are two very similar wordings? (2) I was afraid that would be OR, but it can be read between the lines of the refs. Done. (3) Splitting would require adding "he also believed that", which would be unnecessarily repetitive. The sentence is fine as it stands. (4) No matter how you arrange the images, they will cause formatting problems on some browsers at some screen resolutions. I've done the best I can with a variety of browsers. [Actually, that image was moved where it currently is by another editor, who objected to its previous location. I'll put it back.] (5) Done.
I think that covers everything where it's clear what you object to. kwami (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly hi! 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly. People keep bringing up the 3D thing, but as far as I can tell, that's not the point. Copyright law does not appear to hinge on an object being 2D, but only on whether there is sufficient originality. For example, the The Last Supper is painted on a 3D object (a church) and has 3D elements (cracks in the surface, a doorway arch cut through the bottom), yet the photo we have of it has been tagged on Commons as PD-art for 3½ years, and even as a featured picture candidate, no-one objected that being 3D invalidated it from being public domain. They only objected that the resolution wasn't good enough.
As far as Image:Rongorongo B-v Aruku-Kurenga (end).jpg, the copyright holder of the book gave permission to use the images. They even emailed me higher resolution images in case these weren't good enough. (They are actually PD-old, but people have raised such a fuss about that that it's not worth bringing it up, and I don't see the harm in attributing the people who are making them available to the public.) Specifically discussed was GDFL, but I've since read that GDFL is not an appropriate license for Commons, and so added the second tag, which also fits the usage permission. I've asked Commons what to do with this info, but as usual, there's no response. (It was a mistake to upload anything to Commons, but I'll know better next time.) Meanwhile, there's a link to the copyright holders of the book, in case anyone wants to verify.
With the two fair-use images where the source is given as the CEIPP, that's because the source is the CEIPP. I don't understand the objection.
Sources are sometimes only given as a museum, and the photographer is not known. Again, with the Last Supper, no source information was given at all. That wasn't a problem for featured picture status, so I don't understand the problem here. kwami (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Kwamikagami - yes, the debate on the 3D thing can go either way. You probably haven't heard the end of it yet. I don't think that particular issue should keep the article from featured status. On Image:Rongorongo B-v Aruku-Kurenga (end).jpg, if the copyright holder e-mailed you the license, please forward that e-mail to "permissions AT wikimedia.org" with a link to the photo page(s), and they will add an OTRS ticket to the image(s). GFDL is just fine as a Commons license; you may have just read that it's not the best license for content re-users, because they have to print the text of the license with the photo. But that doesn't affect us here at Wikipedia.
On the CEIPP images, the reason that not adequate as a source is that it's not verifiable. Did a CEIPP employee take the photos? How did we get the photos? Is there an online source? Kelly hi! 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I got them from the website of a member of the CEIPP who has worked on this article. I've just checked and have found what appear to be the original sources. kwami (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't heard back from Permissions, but I've forwarded them the copyright email. kwami (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)