Talk:The Gardener's Son/GA1

! width="30" | Rate

! width="300"| Attribute

! | Review Comment

| colspan="3" | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

{{GATable/item|1a|y|

}}

• What does "sometimes highly miscellaneous" mean?

:*{{Done}} Great question! I'm sure I meant something by it when I wrote it? But I don't remember what I intended anymore, and reading it back now I'm as mystified as you. I think the phrase may refer to the sheer breadth of their research, i.e. that it came to include a significant amount of background information, even some that were not necessarily within the purview of what was strictly needed for writing the screenplay. In any case I think the sentence is stronger without it, so I cut the phrase. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 22:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Overall, very well-written. As is my usual practice, I've made minor tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any you disagree with, just let me know.

:*Thank you! I appreciate your tweaks—that's usually my style when doing GA reviews as well, it's faster and easier for both of us. While reviewing your tweaks I made two minor countertweaks, but by and large your revisions looked like obvious improvements to me. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 22:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Pass.

{{GATable/item|1b|y|

}}

• Pass, no issues.

| colspan="3" | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

{{GATable/item|2a|y|

}}

• Pass, no unreferenced passages.

{{GATable/item|2b|y|

}}

• Mostly newspaper sourcing from reputable local newspapers, plus a couple national papers. A few academic sources, largely books on McCarthy, as well. No concerns.
• Spot check Pearce, Arnold & Luce, Luce 1999, and Josyph a couple of cites for each - all good based on snippets I can see.

{{GATable/item|2c|y|

}}

• Pass, no issues.

{{GATable/item|2d|y|

}}

• Earwig finds nothing concerning (a few quotes were flagged) and a manual spot-check of sources revealed no other issues of copyvio or close paraphrasing. Pass.

| colspan="3" | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

{{GATable/item|3a|y|

}}

• Unable to find any other areas of coverage. Highly detailed.

{{GATable/item|3b|y|

}}

• No areas of overdetail after a few minor trims during prose review.

{{GATable/item|4|y|

}}

• No issues, critical reception section is well-written and correctly reflects the intent of the reviewers.

{{GATable/item|5|y|

}}

• Most work done last August, talk page comment addressed. Pass.

| colspan="3" | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

{{GATable/item|6a|y|

}}

• I'm not sure I understand the copyright logic fully behind the use of the Daily Times-News photos, specifically this one. Do newspapers publish a copyright notice as part of every single issue? Are all pre-1978 newspaper photos public domain in papers/issues which did not do so? If you could restate the case, that would be great, thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

:*Was every individual issue of a periodical (magazine, newspaper, etc.) required to carry its own copyright notice in order to preserve its publisher's copyright interest in that issue's contents? The answer is decisively "yes"—strange but true. Pre-1978 US copyright law was highly formalistic, and it was relatively easy for publishers to inadvertently forfeit copyright protections. Every individual issue of a newspaper is treated as its own distinct published work. They couldn't comply with the notice requirement by other means, such as by printing one super-notice covering all past or future issues for the year. (Advertisements in turn were required to include their own individual notices—newspaper publishers do not claim ownership of ads published within their pages, as any intellectual property in an ad belongs to the advertiser).{{pb}}Big national newspapers like the New York Times—with their staff's deep institutional knowledge, and the financial resources to seek the counsel of fancy lawyers—have almost always had their shit together and printed valid copyright notices on every issue, every time. However, I've found that smaller regional newspapers sometimes neglected this important formality. For any images sourced from newspapers in the article, I checked each page of the entire issue, front to back, found no notice—although as a practical matter, for most pre-1978 newspaper issues that did include such a notice, the notice would typically be found either on the front cover or within the first few pages on the masthead (where publishers provide contact information for their office, credits for editorial staff, and other publication info). Sources for the above: §2207.1(E) and §2207.2 of the [https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap2200/ch2200-notice.pdf Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, 3rd edition]. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 22:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

::* Thanks for the thorough explanation. Pass!

{{GATable/item|6b|y|

}}

• Regrettably, despite the obvious effort which went into procuring them, I don't think the images of Dourif and McCarthy in the cast section are high-quality enough or necessary enough to justify inclusion.

:*I don't disagree about the unfortunately compromised quality, thanks to the photos being reduced to black-and-white newsprint then scanned into compressed digital form. But that said, the images are public domain and show the actors in-character, in-costume. For films as late as the 1970s, images like these in any useable quality are a precious find. The photo of McCarthy is I think of particular interest: before I uploaded it to Commons, I don't believe it's been republished or even circulated (except perhaps privately among McCarthy scholars) before. I'd much prefer to keep them tbh! I would certainly replace them if I found superior quality scans that also happen to be verifiably public domain. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 22:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

::* Hmm - I still disagree, but it's not enough to keep the article from GA quality.

• I don't think we need both the LA Times and NYTimes advertisements - keep one and remove the other.

:* Issue addressed.

::*{{Done}} You raised a good point here; I kept the NY Times ad since it's just about The Gardener's Son and removed the LA Times since it was a calendar for the Visions series as a whole. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 22:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Pass.

{{GATable/item|7|y|

}}