The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 04:12, 13 November 2010 [1].

---

Taiwanese aborigines[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Taiwanese aborigines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Taiwanese aborigines

• Featured article review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: Maowang, Ling.Nut, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Taiwan

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several dead links, including red links, and 1c issues. This article was promoted to FA status in 2007 and it hasn't been review since. JJ98 (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Fixing dead links is a trivial task.
2. 1C issues? What does that mean? I don't think a better-researched document on this topic exists outside of Wikipedia. Even among FAs, this one is more than normally well-cited. I am perplexed. • Ling.Nut 05:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1C? It's very well researched, and well cited. I don't think there are any referencing concerns at all with this article. I'm reviewing redlinks and dead links to see what needs to be done on that score. Taiwantaffy (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've fixed most of the dead links already. I'm kinda shocked the Formosan Language Archive is a dead link. I wanna leave it alone for a couple days, to see if it is a temporary problem... I'm having problems finding Ho-hi-yan radio station info; does it still exist? I updated the population info to 2009 (was 2006). • Ling.Nut 08:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Regarding these issues:

• I am seeing a citation needed tag in the section "Plains, Mountains and Tribal definitions".
• This image File:Taiwan aborigine en.jpg appears to have tagged with an inappropriate JPEG compression. The image needs to be a PNG or SVG format.
• There are two red links in the article:

• Luilang - redlinked.
• Trobiawan - also redlinked.

• I am also seeing dead links in the article:

• [2] - dead link.
• [3] - also a dead link.
• http://formosan.sinica.edu.tw/formosan/en/archive_contents.htm - a dead link as with the external link. JJ98 (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed Formosan language archives links. They must have moved things very recently. • Ling.Nut 12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• First, redlinks are not always evil. There's a balance involved – if people redlink a lot of terms that will never be notable enough to warrant a separate article, then it uglifies the current article. However, redlinks also encourage the creation of new articles or new redirects, both of which are useful... In the present case, I removed several redlinks that looked hopelessly non-notable to me, but I also created one or two redirects or repaired links (e.g., I fixed redlinks to Corvée and Tongji (spirit medium)). The two redlinks you list above are extinct tribes. Some day someone may find enough material to write a short article on them. This is not a FAR-worthy complaint; it really wasn't one before I fixed/removed the six or so troublesome redlinks. The appropriate response would be for you to ((sofixit)), not call FAR. And remember, redlinks are not always evil.
• Second, did you read the comments (above) about the dead external links? They have already been discussed. Reading others' comments is often useful.
• Third, did I miss the rule about .png or .svg being mandatory? I know image-geeks prefer them, but is there a rule about this somewhere? Moreover, one image formatting problem (if it is a problem, which I doubt) is not enough to call FAR. It's yet another case of ((sofixit)).
• Fourth, one citation needed is not a crisis; it is certainly not enough to call FAR. That particular passage has been the subject of two or three politically-motivated (but brief and minor) edit wars over the past couple years. The ((fact)) tag will be removed and inserted again a couple times in the next couple years... But I fixed it. • Ling.Nut 04:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I've left notes on the talk pages of Malleus and Elcobbola for an image and prose check. Ling.Nut, I noted your comment on Jj98's page, and wanted to clarify that if an article is deemed "keep-worthy" in a short period of time, it doesn't have to be here for a month. That is only in the case of articles likely to be delisted, to give editors a long period of time to jump in and start fixing! If a good prose, reference and image check are done by a couple of uninvolved, experienced editors and they state here that the article should be kept then it can be off the page immediately. Dana boomer (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comments regarding criterion three:
  • File:Rukai chief.jpg - No date or author in image summary or at source. How can we verify the license?
    • Source: "Source[1] Rukai Chief visiting Department of Anthropology in Tokyo Imperial University during the Japanese rule. 日本四國德島縣出身ㄝ鳥居龍藏1896年開始攝ㄝ原住民全紀錄 東京帝国大学人類学教室を訪れたルカイ族・マンタウラン社の頭目（正面）". Is it in the wrong place? • Ling.Nut 22:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I haven't said it doesn't have a source. Please read critically. Эlcobbola _talk 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Taiwanese aborigines(1895).jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
    • Image removed, replaced with File:Femme Pepohan de Formose et son enfant.jpg. PMA data provided. • Ling.Nut 03:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Resolved. Эlcobbola _talk 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Taiwan aborigine en.jpg - Needs a source for the underlying distribution data.
    • What is underlying distribution data? I see this: "This page was GFDL licensed by its creator, Mababa (talk · contribs) on 07:53, 23 January 2005. --Ling.Nut 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)" • Ling.Nut 22:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • This is a map of tribe distribution. From what source did the data used to create (underlying) the image come? Эlcobbola _talk 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Image replaced with File:Formosan Distribution en.png, which seems to have better provenance. • Ling.Nut 08:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • The image is derived in part from File:Tw-administration.jpg, which doesn't have source information. I'm not bothered, as I think this image is sufficiently original, but note that long-term stability maybe be jeopardized without that sourcing. Эlcobbola _talk 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:PepoWomanChild S.jpg - US does not consider PMA for published works; needs supplementary license for US status.
    • What is PMA? What is a supplementary license? You do everyone a disservice by lapsing into jargon. This image was published in 1877... if it isn't PD, then PD does not exist.• Ling.Nut 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Only to those who can't be bothered to research its meaning. PMA is Post Mortem Auctoris (after the author's death). Supplementary is an adjective form of supplement. You'll find it in the dictionary. I've not said it isn't PD. Please read critically. Эlcobbola _talk 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • This image as created by Paul (Pavel Ivanovich) Ibis (1852–77). See here for bio; see here for source info of image. • Ling.Nut 03:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • The US does not consider PMA for published works; it doesn't matter who the author was or when they died if the work was published, as this was. It just needs a supplemental license (i.e. in addition to the present one) indicating this. Adding ((PD-US)) or ((PD-1923)) would resolve this issue. Alternatively, replace the current license with ((PD-old-70-1923|1877)). Эlcobbola _talk 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Thank you for the clarification. I added ((PD-US)) as per your request. • Ling.Nut 01:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Formosans.jpg - Needs a verifiable source (Gedenkwaarding bedriff der Nederlandsche Oost-Indische Maetschappye op de Kuste en in het keizerrijk van Taising of Sina is not a source).
    • Image removed, replaced with File:Xingang Writing 2.jpg. Thanks for your time and trouble. • Ling.Nut 01:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Plain Aborigines Taipei.jpg - Summary only addresses status in Japan. What is copyright status in US?
  • File:Atayal.jpg - No author attributed at the source. What is the basis then for claiming s/he has been dead 70 years?
    • Perhaps the fact that the pictures were taken in 1897 might be a tip-off? The uploaders etc. provided source info in Japanese. They are Chinese-speakers on the Chinese Wikipedia. • Ling.Nut 23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Consider a photographer aged 27 (i.e. born 1870) who lived to age 81 (i.e. died 1941). They could have created a work in 1897 and not yet have been dead 70 years. Creation date has nothing to do with date of author death, and this wasn't created at a time (e.g. 1797) at which no author could possibly have been dead less than 70 years. Who is the author? When did s/he die? Эlcobbola _talk 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See MOS:CAPTION for when and when not to use periods. Эlcobbola _talk 15:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comments. I don't really see very much wrong with this article, and certainly nothing sufficiently serious to warrant an FAR as opposed to a discussion its talk page. I don't understand the 1c) objection at all, apart from a few dead links which ought to be easy to sort out. Nothing is perfect however, and if I was being hypercritical I might say that the prose is a little awkward in a few places, such as "Japanese rule ended the practice by 1930, but some elder Taiwanese can recall the practice" at the end of the Headhunting section. One thing I really do think needs to be sorted out though is the inconsistent capitalisation of "aborigines" and "aboriginal". The article title is clearly Taiwanese aborigines, which is how the lead starts off, but towards the end it's been transmogrified into "Taiwanese Aboriginese", and capitalisation appears rather random thereafter. But again, this isn't sufficient to justify and FAR in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comments I also don't see any problems that would merit a delisting. All of the concerns could have been adressed within ten minutes of editing or talk page discussion (image rights problems could have been adrssed by simply removing the images untill the status is clear).·Maunus·ƛ· 14:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comments:
  • There are a bunch of 2c issues which need fixing for consistency, given style, and academic correctness.
  • Richard Wilson (1970) is miscited as being published by MIT when it was published by MIT Press. Suggest a thorough refcheck. Library of Congress isn't the best bibliographic authority, I found Wilson's correct publisher by searching for academic reviews.
  • Similar problems with: Tsuchida, Shigeru (1983).
  • Bibliography needs a check for terminal full-stops (ie: Suenari, Michio (2006).)
  • Not acceptable, "Shepherd, John Robert (1995). Marriage and Mandatory Abortion among the 17th Century Siraya." location and publisher please.
  • Bibliographic items cited out of style for that kind of work (lacking quotes around title), ie (Rolett, Barry V., Jiao, Tianlong & Lin, Gongwu (2002). Early seafaring in the Taiwan Strait and the search for Austronesian origins. Journal of Early Modern History 4.1:307–319.)
    • There shouldn't be quotes around the title of a journal. That is why there are none. • Ling.Nut 23:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The issue is about article titles, journal titles, consistency (the articles apparent standard is Article Journal Title, except for some conference proceedings):
        1. Italicised both article and journal title, quoted article title: Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Yu (2005). "The Formosan Language Archive: Linguistic Analysis and Language Processing. (PDF)". Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 10.2:167–200.
        2. Italicised journal title, no quotes: Tsao, Feng-fu (1999). The Language Planning Situation in Taiwan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 20.4,5:328–48.
        3. Just woah Premier apologizes to Tao tribe. (2002, May 24). Taipei Times. Pg. 3. Accessed March 17, 2007.
        4. Just woah Gao, Pat (2001). Minority, Not Minor. "Taiwan Review". Website of Government Information Office, Republic of China. Accessed August 22, 2010.
        5. Conference papers also flip around in style: Shih, Cheng-Feng (1999). Legal Status of the Indigenous Peoples of Taiwan. Paper presented at the June, 1999 International Aboriginal Rights Conference in Taipei. Accessed March 24, 2007.
        • The other conference papers (several) were published in a bound volume; I treated them as chapters in a book. The Shih, Cheng-Feng paper (at the time I added it, anyhow) was not published in a volume. I believe it follows APA style. Just FYI, the fmt here is LSA, which is a flavor of APA.• Ling.Nut 02:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • What: "The sia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus."?
  • Consistency Newspaper Names not italicised, newspaper articles italicised.
  • Correct spacing required, "Taipei:SMC Publishing."
  • Page numbers (common error)? (ie: Hsiau, A-chin (1997). Language Ideology in Taiwan: The KMT’s language policy, the Tai-yü language movement, and ethnic politics. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18.4.)
  • Capitalisation? (ie: journal title positions)
    • That is the way it is spelled. I suppose they want to be cool. • Ling.Nut 23:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Double check publisher, appears to be published by the institute on its own authority as part of a monograph series (Negotiating Ethnicities in China and Taiwan).
  • There's a whole bunch of spacing errors in the bibliography.
  • Incorrectly cited, wrong style used, dissertations have their own style generally, and aren't "published" by the University: "Chou, Hui-Min (2005). Educating urban indigenous students in Taiwan: Six teachers’ perspectives. University of Maryland: Doctoral dissertation."
  • Incorrectly placed as a footnote (out of style): "^ Davidson, James Wheeler (1903). The Island of Formosa, Past and Present. Macmillan & Co.. p. 255.
    • An editor has reinserted this cite, which I consider to be immensely suspect (almost ridiculous, in fact). However, I need to play fair and give the editor one week two days to back up his assertion that it is a reliable source. I have asked the editor to wash his own dishes by correcting the cite format. Waiting. • Ling.Nut 02:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• "Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So fix it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'd put a time estimate for the job at something between 4 and 8 hours, due to extensive repeated bibliographic look-ups. I'd be happy to sort the style issues, but I'm not touching the correctness issues, in part due to the article's reliance on Taiwanese republications of overseas material. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I hardly think that altering "MIT" to "MIT Press" would take more than a few seconds, but let me remind you that the purpose here is to consider whether FAs justify their status, not whether they can be improved. Anything can be improved. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • The article currently fails 2c on style and requires a sub-edit for style consistency to meet 2c. Fixing the 2c style problems has to wait until the 1c/2c quality of reference issues to do with publisher and page runs is fixed by someone with access to the Taiwanese national deposit library's bibliographic catalogue. As such the article doesn't meet FA requirements at 2c, and in some minor ways 1c. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • In your opinon, not mine. Please don't state your opinions as fact. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • This is why all commentary is given over a signature is it not? Please feel free to use my talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • In my opinion, nailing the cites on publishers is a bit iffy. Books often change publishers; publishers often change names, etc. The publishers (or at least, the vast majority of them) were accurate at the time of writing, and they are still accurate in that sense. I will try to clean up the few remaining problems, wherever I see them. Thank you for you careful review. • Ling.Nut 04:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • In a number of cases, a University as a publisher is far less reputable than the associated University Press as a publisher (Universities publish with the reputation of the Chancellor / President / Vice Chancellor, University Presses publish with the reputation of their Editor-in-Chief). If you nail the missing bibliographic data (one publication data item, a bunch of pages of journal articles, two probable incorrect publishers on University Presses), I'll sub-edit the style issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • (ec) Hey, when you point out the Suenari ref and say the period after the year in parentheses is unacceptable, are you saying there are inconsistencies somewhere, or simply that it is unacceptable to place a period there at any time? If it is the latter, then I am afraid that I must Decline your suggestion. FAC rules, MOS rules, etc. state that articles can use any <adjective redacted> format they want for refs, (as I know, much to my chagrin as a reviewer), so long as they are consistent. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to do them. Thanks. • Ling.Nut 04:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • There are inconsistencies, some sources ( Eyton, Laurence (2004, March 3). ) have terminal full-stops in the bibliographic lines. Other sources ( Faure, David (2001). ) lack these. The complaint about the "Articles" in Containing work or "Articles" Newspaper title is also about consistency. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • OK thanks. I dunno if I'll copy that section into user pace and work there, or if I may need to put off working for a day or two.. but either way, I'll get on it. Thanks... • Ling.Nut 05:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - Actually, this article seems rather quite good, especially with regards to sourcing/referencing. :) However, might I make a teensy-tiny suggestion to just consider changing the cite format to in-line-citations? The current citation style works just fine, as it is meticulously done throughout the article and not simply sporadic, in this particular case, just might make things more uniform throughout and a bit easier for the reader and for future research. Just a thought and suggestion, is all, feel free to take it or leave it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The refs are inline. By "inline refs" do you mean footnote style with <ref></rf> tags? That would be a huge, huge change. It would take a couple days' off and on work. Moreover, the current ref style is the style I always saw in uni.• Ling.Nut 17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, that is what I meant. But, okay okay okay, understood, no worries, it was just a suggestion. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving down for a conclusion YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing, copyright, MOS YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep as an nominator. Agreed, the article has no 1c issues. I seeing good improvements so far. JJ98 (Talk) 04:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - I think we're just waiting on image clearance at this point. LingNut, if you could make sure all concerns are addressed and then ping Elcobbola, it would be much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delist: Several criterion three concerns remain outstanding. Эlcobbola _talk 15:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment These photo standards strongly reinforce the tendency toward systemic bias (and recentism as well, though to a considerably lesser degree), by placing undue burden on editors who wish to edit in topic areas other than those coming from the United States, Australia and England. To wit, these photos are PD. They were published before 1923 in another country (Japan). However, this kind of metadata is not considered valuable enough to store anywhere, at least not anywhere easily accessible. There is no source that says, "oh by the way, these photos were published in 1901 by the University's anthropology department, or as a part of a French-language monograph by Torii Ryūzō". If I were to pay to board an airplane, fly to the University of Tokyo (where the photos are held), and find someone to translate for me as I spoke to a librarian who would dig through boxes in their basement to find the relevant publication, I might be able to find written documentation of this fact. Otherwise, however, there is no hope. Score one for systemic bias on Wikipedia; only recent English-language articles can pass the Procrustean photos standards.. • Ling.Nut 01:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep – This article should have been kept and removed from this review process long ago. Lambanog (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Lambanog, the reason this article hasn't been removed a long time ago is outstanding image concerns. Per Elcobbola's comments, it doesn't meet criteria 3 of the featured article criteria, hence it does not meet the standards needed for a featured article. The delegates do not write the criteria, we simply enforce them as they were written by the community - if you wish to change the standards, please go to the criteria page and start a discussion. Otherwise, the best way to get this article passed would either be to help Ling.Nut find verification on the images or find new images for the article. I do agree with Ling that this criteria makes it hard on writers who work on non-English, non-recent topics, but delegates cannot simply ignore the criteria because they don't like them in a certain situation. Dana boomer (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• you could have just removed the problematic pictures instead of all this nonsense. The image concerns mentioned are ridiculous nitpickery anyway, which as ling.nut has menioned poses impossible requirement for a lot of articles on non-American subjects. One thing is trying to enforce a standard another is being reasonable about it, and a third thing is being reasonable about AND conducting reviews in away that respects the contributors who spend their time writing material for this encyclopedia.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Or alternatively, you could act like an adult and recognize that the images are PD, but that the metadata which establishes that fact, if it exists anywhere, exists in Japanese in some box in a basement of the University of Tokyo. And yes, I did use the word "adult" in the first sentence. Reviewers cannot simply ignore real-world shortcomings in data display. That would be throwing your arms wide open to WP:Systemic bias, and welcoming it to Wikipedia with a wide, warm smile. • Ling.Nut 23:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Go ahead, go look at the images in Commons. If we use those images, the article will look like a poop smear. No one benefits. Moreover, we will not (in reality) have moved from non-compliance to compliance with copyright laws, since the images are now and will continue to be PD. • Ling.Nut 12:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• OK, the article has now been rendered completely, ludicrously ugly. Someone ping ElC. • Ling.Nut 12:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • An editor from Commons has deleted the photo I put in the sidebar. Try again. • Ling.Nut 23:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • All issues resolved except for the image in the sidebar; waiting on the reviewer who !voted "Delist" to ... review. • Ling.Nut 10:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • asked Jappalang to come along as Elcob is AWOL YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Disclaimer: I just passed a GA for Jappalang. I didn't know anything about his img reviews at FAR; just now saw on ElC's talk that he was mentioned as an alternate reviewer. I went to ElC's talk just now only to see why he was AWOL. I reviewed Jappalang's article because it was ahead of mine in the GA queue (selfish reasons), but passed it because it looks GA to me. [I had previously Failed another article that I reviewed for the same reason, and am now reviewing a third from the same queue... for the same reason].• Ling.Nut 01:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image comments: I do not see the unstricken images above in the article, so I think those are resolved (by removal from article). However, I do have the following queries to make (not knowing if they had been reviewed previously).

• File:Tsou youth of Taiwan (pre-1945).jpg

  One of the most wide-spread misconceptions I see on Wikipedia is thinking that creation is publication. The latter term involves making several copies of the work and distributing (either giving or selling) them to the public. Hence, I am hesitant about "collection of old photographs published before 1945 (author of photo unknown)". Publication claims should be backed by a source, or naming and giving details about the specific publication. The publication date thus becomes an issue; if the photograph was published in Taiwan before 1945, it falls under Japanese copyright law, which would make it public domain. However, if published later, it falls under the Chinese copyright law that gives 50 years of post-publication protection. Hence, if a pre-1945 photograph is first published in 1970, the protection is until 2021. That said, the image should be using a US tag (to denote copyright status in the US) and a country of origin tag (either PD-Japan-oldphoto or PD-China).

  I don't actually believe I can dance well enough to make this image acceptable. I didn't even believe it at the time that I added it to the template. Quite frankly, I do not believe there are any images at all in Commons that would meet even the loosest criteria of minimum acceptability to be placed atop this page which also happen to be in possession of the full array of metadata which would verify the (patently true) fact that it is PD. If you can see an image that works, then by all means throw it up on the board. • Ling.Nut 09:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:Formosan Distribution en.png

  The base map (File:Tw-administration.jpg) of this chart is unsourced. We need to know whether that map is created from (or of) public domain material or sets of data (reference: commons:Commons:Image casebook#Maps and satellite images). I recommend using File:Taiwan location map.svg as a base map (NordNordWest is exemplary in making good-looking maps, which are compliant with policies and guidelines). There is also File:Map of Taiwan 1901.jpg available for use.

  Close inspection suggests that the base map of File:Tw-administration.jpg is in fact File:Taiwan location map.svg, which you recommended we use. • Ling.Nut 09:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No, it is not. The JPG (which is of unknown origin) has more details to the coast line than the SVG (which is constructed from mapping data). Jappalang (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I can cobble up a new map based on the SVG, but what are the specifics for the distribution? "SA (Scientific American) Traditional Chinese version "Diversity of Taiwan" (科學人《多樣性台灣》)" is no help when no issue, article name, or page number is given. Jappalang (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I have replaced this map with File:General distribution of indigenous people in Taiwan.svg, which uses a compliant base map and has verifiable sources for the distribution. Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:Beijing-NiuJie-Hani-Gaoshan-Ewenki-3656.jpg

  This photograph would have unquestionably qualified for China's freedom of panorama if the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned (应当指明作者姓名、作品名称). Who is the author and what is the (official) title of this work?

  I took that photo of the poster. The title is "The great united family of peoples" (民族团结大家庭, Minzu tuanjie da jiating), as the image's description indicate. I did not see the name of the author anywhere on the poster, and assume that s/he was an employee of [an agency of] China's People's Government, or an artist commissioned by the government. As to the licensing, I leave any possible improvements to those with better knowledge of such things. -- Vmenkov (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It would be best to ask Jeremy Kemp to go back to the images he had uploaded and use the ((own work)) template on them (using ((Information)) template for a tidier look would do good as well). The current image pages give no trail (broken by the way they had been transferred) for re-users (who are not administrators of both servers) to verify the author and public domain tag.

  I'll see what I can do. • Ling.Nut 09:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Based on File:Taiwan nun.jpg, I am inclined to believe the PD tags for those photographs are correct. Although stricken, an administrator's help in chronicling the transfers (stating to the effect of what the original statements made on Wikipedia were) on those Commons pages would be better for the project in the long term. Jappalang (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of these should be easy to resolve to keep their use in the article. Jappalang (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images okay. Jappalang (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Sorry, I'm in a busy stretch of the week. Will probably have time to look at these tomorrow... • Ling.Nut 09:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. The lead is not a faithful summary of the article (criterion 2a). It contains a lot of information not mentioned in the main text (about Austronesian languages, for instance). Ruslik_Zero 17:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment and for your time. Problem resolved. • Ling.Nut 00:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • • I have been working with Jappalang on the image issues; I appreciate his help.
      • I am still very unhappy with FAC/FAR/FARC's ivory tower, procrustean views on image issues; I believe that a more reasonable, sensible and realistic approach would save editors a boatload of pointless trouble and hours of time, and would close this FAR/FARC immediately. But what's to be done? Absolutely nothing, it seems. • Ling.Nut 00:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I have engaged in some positive email dialog with a person who uploaded some images that Jappalang found on Flickr. This should create some progress. Thanks to Jappalang and NordNordWest for the map. • Ling.Nut 01:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note, there are quite a few niggling MOS issues to be worked through still-- page number formatting, italics and bold, image captions. I also wonder if so much linking of well known countries is needed? Also, FAs should be comprehensive-- why can't some of the "See also" be worked into the article? Are all of those External links needed? None of this is significant, but it should be addressed before closing the FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• New image uploaded to sidebar. I believe it should be OK (have discussed with Jappalang).... I am sick of looking for images; is this a sufficient number?
• New tables; I think they are too large and unsourced. Any opinions from reviewers? • Ling.Nut (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It looks like the table thing has been taken care of - good. Do you have image clearance from Jappalang? The number of images looks fine, there's no definite number and too many is worse than too few. Dana boomer (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think the images have been OK'd. This edit by Jappalang has edit summary "images OK in my view". • Ling.Nut (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.