Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Indefatigable (1909)/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:16, 31 August 2010 [1].
HMS Indefatigable (1909) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured article candidates/HMS Indefatigable (1909)/archive1
- Featured article candidates/HMS Indefatigable (1909)/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it recently passed a MilHist ACR and has subsequently been tweaked by myself and several others. A participant in the failed hunt for the German battlecruiser Goeben in the Mediterranean at the start of World War I, Indefatigable became the first of three British battlecruisers to be destroyed by magazine explosions during the Battle of Jutland in 1916, the largest naval battle of the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
What makes http://www.peakfinder.com/peakfinder.asp?Peakname=Mount+Indefatigable a reliable source?- Replaced.
Likewise http://www.gwpda.org/naval/jut07wrk.htm?- It has multiple sources, all referenced on the page, and is not a self-published website.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but why is it not self-published? What sort of fact checking does it do? Does it have a reputation for being reliable among other reliable sources? Is it cited by lots of historians/etc? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look on the home page; it says GWPDA, inc or somesuch. I don't know that I've ever seen it referenced by any authors. It mostly seems to be reprinting data from various books as well as articles by various people, some by well-known historians like Edwin Sieche; others I've never heard of, but I'm not a specialist in WWI naval history (Just the ships, ma'am, just the ships).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood that it's easier to get a hold of the material if some guy reproduces it on the web, but from what I'm hearing so far, SV, it doesn't sound like an RS. Have we used this source before? Maybe the case has been made somewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I picked this source specifically because it referenced printed articles rather than just some dive company's site. I can probably replace the link with the latter if that's honestly considered to be an improvement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me ... the deleted material hasn't been considered essential in other ship FACs, and it reads smoothly without it, too. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I picked this source specifically because it referenced printed articles rather than just some dive company's site. I can probably replace the link with the latter if that's honestly considered to be an improvement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood that it's easier to get a hold of the material if some guy reproduces it on the web, but from what I'm hearing so far, SV, it doesn't sound like an RS. Have we used this source before? Maybe the case has been made somewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look on the home page; it says GWPDA, inc or somesuch. I don't know that I've ever seen it referenced by any authors. It mostly seems to be reprinting data from various books as well as articles by various people, some by well-known historians like Edwin Sieche; others I've never heard of, but I'm not a specialist in WWI naval history (Just the ships, ma'am, just the ships).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but why is it not self-published? What sort of fact checking does it do? Does it have a reputation for being reliable among other reliable sources? Is it cited by lots of historians/etc? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has multiple sources, all referenced on the page, and is not a self-published website.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ucucha, per WP:MOS, "Minus signs: Do not use a hyphen (-) as a minus sign (−), except in code (see below); the correct character for general use is U+2212 MINUS SIGN (entered as −)." You changed one of the minus signs; can I change it back? - Dank (push to talk) 11:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per criterion three:
- File:Invincible&IndefatigableSketch.jpg - Brassey's Naval Annual is a UK publication. UK works have copyright terms based on life of the author, not publication. Who is the author? When did s/he die? (This is merely a long-term stability issue, as PD status in the US is supported. Moving to en.wiki would resolve the issue.)
- The book does not credit any artist so it was probably someone on staff. Your question cannot be answered.
- Depending on Jappalang's answer on the Rivadavia-class battleship FAC (still waiting for one, he hasn't edited since the 9th...), we may be able to tag this as UK-unknown. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See [2]. Which references [3] which states that commissioned or freelance work belongs to the artist unless otherwise agreed and that work done as a condition for employment belongs to the employer. So, without an attribution, I'm inclined to think that this is out of copyright in the UK as it was likely done by a staff artist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a link to the title page: [4]. Brassey's makes no exception to copyright for any artists. And the drawing in question, about p. 227, does not list an artist or show any copyright by said artist as it would have to do if the artist retained his copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See [2]. Which references [3] which states that commissioned or freelance work belongs to the artist unless otherwise agreed and that work done as a condition for employment belongs to the employer. So, without an attribution, I'm inclined to think that this is out of copyright in the UK as it was likely done by a staff artist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Depending on Jappalang's answer on the Rivadavia-class battleship FAC (still waiting for one, he hasn't edited since the 9th...), we may be able to tag this as UK-unknown. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The book does not credit any artist so it was probably someone on staff. Your question cannot be answered.
- File:Jutland1916.jpg - No author attributed at the source. Where can we verify federal authorship?
- I've seen the book that the scan comes from. See [5]
- File:HMS Indefatigable (1909).jpg and File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg - licenses address copyright status in country of origin only. What is their status in the US? Эlcobbola talk 15:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Beats me. I'm no expert on US copyright of Imperial War Museum photos, but I'm not sure that US copyright even applies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crown copyright applies worldwide, similar to works of the U.S. government being PD. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not correct. US federal works never have a copyright in the first place (i.e. there is nothing to expire), whereas Crown works have a copyright that evenutally expires. Depending on when a given (Crown) copyright expired, it may or may not be public domain in the United States. Whether the entity holding the copyright was governmental or private is considered if the work was administered by the Alien Property Custodian (see, for example, restoration in accordance with the URAA). Эlcobbola talk 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, not quite what I meant, but my post was unclear. What I am saying is that the Crown copyrights on these images have expired worldwide because they were taken before 1 June 1957. I don't see why these images would be a problem when the British government—the possible copyright holder—has stated that they consider these copyrights to be PD worldwide. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not correct. US federal works never have a copyright in the first place (i.e. there is nothing to expire), whereas Crown works have a copyright that evenutally expires. Depending on when a given (Crown) copyright expired, it may or may not be public domain in the United States. Whether the entity holding the copyright was governmental or private is considered if the work was administered by the Alien Property Custodian (see, for example, restoration in accordance with the URAA). Эlcobbola talk 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crown copyright applies worldwide, similar to works of the U.S. government being PD. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Beats me. I'm no expert on US copyright of Imperial War Museum photos, but I'm not sure that US copyright even applies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Invincible&IndefatigableSketch.jpg - Brassey's Naval Annual is a UK publication. UK works have copyright terms based on life of the author, not publication. Who is the author? When did s/he die? (This is merely a long-term stability issue, as PD status in the US is supported. Moving to en.wiki would resolve the issue.)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comments
- Imagines need ALT Text adding
- Alt text is no longer a requirement.
- Per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images wiki has to accomodate for everyone.
- Not taking a position, just pointing out that that page was demoted from guideline status in March. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, but it's not a FAC requirement, merely recommended.
- I was unaware that it had been demoted in March however it is being recommended to make the article more accessbile.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, but it's not a FAC requirement, merely recommended.
- Alt text is no longer a requirement.
External links need to use correct template- There is no required format for external links, AFAIK.
- As far as my understanding goes all external links are suppose to use the following template: Template:Cite web
- Those are for cites, not general links. See WP:EL.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are for cites, not general links. See WP:EL.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as my understanding goes all external links are suppose to use the following template: Template:Cite web
- There is no required format for external links, AFAIK.
As far as am aware the infobox fails 1.c of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria- Most things except the armor are cited in the design and description section. I'll add cites for everything that is not.
- Will relook at this later.
- Most things except the armor are cited in the design and description section. I'll add cites for everything that is not.
Article should use British English over American English per WP:ENGVAR i.e. First World War not World War I- The article does use British English, but I've changed the usage. Do you have some sort of cite saying that First World War is British English? I've always treated them as equivalent and note that Burt, an English author, uses WWI in his title.
- Various official publications by the British government and the imperial dominions such as the official histories.
- I've used "First World War" etc. in my American English articles without a complaint... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed, cheers :). (Ed thats coz your a dopey Yank ;) only joking!)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've used "First World War" etc. in my American English articles without a complaint... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Various official publications by the British government and the imperial dominions such as the official histories.
- The article does use British English, but I've changed the usage. Do you have some sort of cite saying that First World War is British English? I've always treated them as equivalent and note that Burt, an English author, uses WWI in his title.
Pretty sure imagines should not be under section titles, and at any rate the first image causes the text to display somewhat weird – at least here on the work’s monitor.- Not a whole lot of other places to put them. Especially the Jutland map.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not entirely happy about this (considering the grief ive had in the past about imagines :p) but looking at the article a second time round does seem there located in the best possible places.
- I have only been able to read though half the article thus far but cannot find any other issues; text, grammar and sources seem fine. However would oppose on the above grounds at the moment (although they are quick fixes). I will try and read through the rest over the weekend or next week when time allows. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't answer most of these Sturmvogel, since they involve British English, reference formatting, and images. On the infobox ... almost none of the ship FAs put the references in the infobox; are you saying the material isn't cited in the text? - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The term “half-sister” is used in relation to an HMAS ship and the HMS New Zealand however the term does not seem to be explained; the article it links to talks about sister ships – a term am familiar with - but doesnt mention a "half-sister"; so what is one?
- Thanks for catching that. We (at SHIPS) disagree among ourselves on how to handle this. My position is that if you link a term, then the term should be explained by the linked article. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added an explanation of half-sister to the sister ship article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching that. We (at SHIPS) disagree among ourselves on how to handle this. My position is that if you link a term, then the term should be explained by the linked article. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having finished reading through the article it is clearly well sourced and written, there doesn’t appear to be anything that jumps out other than the few little things I mentioned above. More of a general question than a comment in regards to the article, I am aware that there are competing theories over the reason why some of the ships went down at Jutland but am unsure if these cover the Indy; can you confirm?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The real controversy is over the cause of the HMS Invincible's loss since she was only clearly seen to have been hit in the turret. See that article's talk page for some heated discussion of the reasons for her loss. The causes of the losses of HMS Queen Mary and Indefatigable are far less controversial since both ships were seen to take hits on their hulls that presumably penetrated to their magazines.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.