Talk:Torpedo...Los!

This review is transcluded from Talk:Torpedo...Los!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Status (talk · contribs) 04:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Lead is a bit lacking. Can it be expanded a bit?
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• When it last sold in 1989 --> When it was last sold in 1989
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Details --> Description
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Critical commentary --> Reception
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• I see no other issues with the article. It is well written and sourced.

• All issues have been addressed; passing the article! Statυs (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

comment

Copyvio in the long quotes in footnotes should be addressed. Author should use original wording rather that quote everything. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that exceptionally long footnotes containing copyrighted matter constitutes copyvio. Examples:

[examples redacted: they are indeed, it seems, copyright violations and repeating them here does not help. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)]

Other articles in this series on Lichtenstein's works also contain long quotes from the same authors. Is this use of copy righted material ok? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Long quotes are removed from the article, as well as the non-free tag. This does not, in my opinion, affect the GA status. MathewTownsend, I trust you see now why I did what I did; it's not a question of which violation gets to go first. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying doesn't make sense. If they copyvio is wrong on the talk page, then they are all the more wrong in the article itself, which all the world will see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewTownsend (talk • contribs)

Sorry? Long quotes are removed from the article. Did you miss these edits? Speaking of "doesn't make sense"--you were concerned that the long quotes were copyvios, then you copied them here, then you restored them after I removed them. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Torpedo...Los!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606071341/http://lichtensteinfoundation.org/lfchron1.htm to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lfchron1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502233703/http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/torpedolos.htm to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/torpedolos.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)