Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian National Vimy Memorial/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2016 [1].

Canadian National Vimy Memorial

[edit]
Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Canadian war memorial located in France. It failed an FAC in 2010 but has since been edited and is submitted for FAC in advance of the July 80th anniversary of the monument's unveiling. Labattblueboy (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I enjoyed this and found it readable, but copyediting it was kind of a tough job, so I stopped reading a little more than halfway through, at Second World War. I'm hoping another reviewer will pick it up from there and make a call on supporting or opposing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
What MOS guideline or style guide provides this direction? I don't actually care one way or the other. Rather, it is seems more important to be consistent across articles.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:CAPTION. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that one. Thanks for pointing that one out. Done.--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest scaling up both maps
I've scaled up the battle image but I don't personalty think the memorial map needs it. If you want to scale that image as well I won't oppose, I just don't myself see a need. I don't personally like the battle map image scaled up but if someone will find it useful I'll jump aon board with the idea.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since France does not have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of the monument there?
The Canadian government firmly believes that the memorial is in the public domain. Every historical photo of the memorial at Library and Archives Canada is published as copyright expired, as shown by the links in at least every image I've cited. The memorial was commissioned and paid for by Canada, this much is well documented. Where members of the wikicommons have shown concerns in the past is that the contract between Canada and Allward has never been produced to show that that the Canadian Crown retains copyright eventhough the Canadian government both commissioned and paid for the memorial. From a Wikipedia EN point of view there is no concern as FOP does not apply in US copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, since we're using images of the memorial hosted on Commons, we do have to be concerned about FOP. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could move the image File:Vimy_Memorial_(September_2010)_cropped.jpg and File:The_British_Army_in_North-west_Europe_1944-45_BU760.jpg to the Wikipedia EN side in the mean time. I personally find that unnecessary but will do so if it alleviates concerns. I don't see there being an FOP issue, rather just an overaggressive approach by some. I've seen free use images of the memorial from the archives/national museums of at least France, Canada and the UK. So I am left with the distinct impression that there is a collective conclusion from a number of sources that the memorial is PD.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can source that consensus (or otherwise address the issue), then we should be able to keep it where it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Vimy Memorial (September 2010) cropped.jpg was already on the Wiki-EN side. It was my mistaken belief that it was in the commons.
  • The copyright status of the memorial is not something that's ever been tested. It's simply an observation that if the French and Canadian governments each freely publishes images of the memorial for the last 80 years, a reasonable person would conclude that it's PD.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg: I'm confused by the licensing here. If the image was "migrated from the Victoria Cross Reference site with permission. Photo submitted by Martin Hornby", on what basis does the uploader claim a copyright?
I didn't upload this image but I did some digging anyway and the image is a cigarette card from approx 1916 by Gallaher Ltd of Belfast & London. Licensing is correct that it's an item published before 1923. I'm not seeing the issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image currently includes a GFDL/CC license, which appears to be baseless. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Deleted GFDL and replace it with PD UK Unkown tag as it has no identified artist and was published over 70 years ago.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Canadian_Battlefields_Memorials_Commission_-_Design_Comp.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Vimy_Memorial_-_Design_model.jpg
Question is irrelevant. Both are PD Canada, and the photograph was created before 1949, likely taken in 1922. The location of publcation is unimporant, just date of creation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both images include a tag that states "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923". We need to verify whether this tag is accurate or not, which requires knowing the details of its original publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the PD US 1923 tag for the time being. It's possible that the Journal of the American Institute of Architects published one or the other it in it's 1921 review but I'll have to look into it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Vimy_Memorial_-_Foundation_construction.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Vimy_Memorial_-_half_finished_statue_and_plaster_models.jpg, File:HM_King_Edward_VIII_unveiling_the_figure_of_Canada_on_the_Vimy_Ridge_Memorial.jpg
Why do they require PD US tags? US recognizes PD Canada, on the topic of photographs so I'm not seeing the issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite possible for a work to be PD in Canada but not PD in the US, and since Wikipedia follows US law we need to need if and why it is PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All three images are expired Canadian crown copyright have been tagged as such.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but as the US supports copyright restoration a work that is PD in Canada may not be PD in the US, and thus we need to explicitly account for whether it is or isn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Architectural works constructed before 1 December 1990, are not copyrightable in the US.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Photos of same are. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must be missing something here because these three images seem clear-cut. All are published in source country in or before 1936, making them PD in Canada no later than 1986. There's no US PD issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that these three images, and the three in the point immediately above, were created in or before 1936. As far as I can tell, there is currently no indication of if/when they were published. If we are arguing that they were subject to Crown copyright, publication date will have a significant impact on their current status. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The images are photographer unknown, were created by the Canadian Crown, Crown has classified all three as having expired copyright with no restriction and has separately made clear it has no intention of renewing expired Crown Copyright works in any country so URAA doesn't apply. Chasing down location of first publication is not necessary. If it's more favorable, they could be tagged as Open Government Licence - Canada 2.0.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't however clear when the copyright would have expired, which impacts the status in the US. And if the Crown copyright has indeed expired, there would be no basis for an Open Government License tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this could possibly not be PD in the US. This is not simply a case of expired, the records at Library and Archives Canada clearly noted that restrictions are nil which means that any rights (other than attribution) have been waived. Even if it were unpublished it would be PD in the US as the Canadian Crown is the rights holder and Canada as through an OTRS ticket confirmed it is not renewing expired Crown Copyright works in any country.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the Canadian copyright expired after 1996, then the US copyright would persist regardless of whether Canada wants to renew Crown copyright or not. "Restrictions: nil" doesn't "clearly note" that anything has been waived worldwide. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more than happy to allows a commons deletion request to make the determination one way or the other as I don't believe we are going to find ourselves on the same page with regards to this outstanding point.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had sent a request to Library and Archives Canada who confirmed that the images "may be used freely without seeking permissions from the Government of Canada" just waiting on the OTRS confirmation for File:Vimy_Memorial_-_Foundation_construction.jpg and File:Vimy Memorial - half finished statue and plaster models.jpg. If confirmed I hope that resolves any concerns.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hitler_touring_Vimy_Memorial_in_1940.jpg: can you explain the licensing here? Neither the source nor the attributed author is likely to have published under that license
The Nazi German Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda published the image in 1940 in publications known to the Allied forces to demonstrate that they was not destroyed. See Durflinger source in article regarding the site being used as a propaganda tool. The 1964 article from the Legionary is the first case that I'd seen with my own eyes. My understanding, is that any potential copyright would fall to the German state. Do please modify if you interpret otherwise.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That explanation does not appear to be compatible with the current licensing, but I'm not sure what the correct licensing would be. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My initial impression was this image was anonymous but I did some digging and found the image was taken by Heinrich Hoffmann. The image was published in June 1940 in Germany and then subsequently 4-5 days later in the US (obviously unauthorized). The US considers official photographs by the Nazi German government to be PD by the nature of them being war booty but the status in Germany is hazy. For Lichtbilder photographs Germany assigns 50 years copyright after publication but I'm not sure this image would qualify under that basis. I've nominated the commons image for deletion and uploaded it Wiki-EN where it is in the company of a number off Hoffmann images--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg: this work is of Canadian origin, not Australian - the given tag does not apply.
Work is of Australian origin (artist is Australian) but owned by the Canadian government. PD Canada may apply because it was likely commissioned by Canada but in the end its the same different, published in 1931 and artist died in 1953 (Before 1955 PD deadline) thus in public domain.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For our purposes country of origin is the location of first publication or public display, which appears to be Canada rather than Australia. Do you have any source suggesting that under this definition country of origin is Australia? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Location of first showing is not known with certainty and may very well have been the UK. My personal guess would be the UK as Will Longstaff painted his famous Menin Gate at midnight in the UK in 1927[2] and Immortal shrine in the UK in 1928[3]. Further, Captain John Arthur Dewar, of Dewar's whiskey fame is the one who purchased the painting and donated it to the "people of Canada".[4] Shall we go with UK than?--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say without more information, but if it's UK the image is likely not free. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've found no record of public display in the UK for any of the above. Since Canada claims Ghosts of Vimy Ridge is PD and Australia claims Menin Gate at midnight and Menin Gate at midnight as PD it would seem to be that purchases were made direct from artist. This seems most probable as that is what happened for Longstaff's The rearguard (The spirit of ANZAC)[5]. I've changed the tag to reflect the first cited exhibition as being in Canada in 1932.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But not under Crown copyright, correct? That would mean it isn't PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct not crown copyright. For US PD, as it was first published abroad before 1978 it's status in the US comes down to whether it was in the public domain in Canada on 1 January 1996, correct? If so, you are correct that it is not PD is the US. Longstaff died in 1953 meaning Ghosts of Vimy Ridge was under potential copyright until 2003. I see nothing to indicate that Longstaff waved copyright before 1996 so PD in the US is 95 years after first publication, or 2027. Agreed?--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ghosts of Vimy Ridge.jpeg is nominated for deletion in the commons and has been replaced by a WWII war recruitment poster.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose until some of the image issues are addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—I popped in here from my current FAC, and I figure that we can leave the image questions to others, but in the meantime we can get other items else sorted while we wait.

  • fn 91: "Tom Kennedy, CTV National News, 9 April 2007." That's both incomplete, and inconsistently formatted compared to the other footnotes.
Formatting standardized. There is no longer a URL link to provide so it will need to stand without one.-Labattblueboy (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 114 needs some polishing.
    • The date is in an inconsistent format compared to the rest of the citations. It's also ambiguous.
    • The author's last name should not be rendered in all caps.
    • It would be nice if we could get a |trans-title= added to list an English translation of the source title. (Nice, but not required, and if it's possible to add to other sources, please do.)
    • I have all of the error messages enabled, and I'm getting the "Missing or empty |url=" error.
  • fn 115 is using {{citation}}, which is Citation Style 2, while the rest of the article's footnotes use Citation Style 1 templates. Either style is fine, but they shouldn't be mixed (unless you're going to add |mode=CS1 or |mode=CS2 as appropriate to flip the style from one to the other.)
  • fn 122 should have the all caps reduced per the MOS.
  • fn 128 has an ISO-style date while the rest is in DD Month YYYY format.
  • A quick thought regarding fn 3 and fn 129, but it looks a little weird to have a capitalized word or abbreviation for an in-source location. I'd use "fig." and "ch." respectively.

Looking at the References section

  • You might want to quickly audit the titles for capitalization consistency. It appears that you're pretty much consistently using title case, and there are a few examples where words would need to be capitalized, like "memorial" in Art or memorial? : The Forgotten History of Canada's War Art, "before" in "The Battlefield before the Canadians, 1914–1916" or "are" in "The Gunners of Vimy Ridge: 'We are Hammering Fritz to Pieces'". A common rule of thumb is that the first word and the last word in a title and a subtitle get capitalized as well as all nouns, all verbs and words over five letters in length. In any event, just do a quick audit to make sure you're consistent across the titles.
Art or memorial should me Art or Memorial, Correction made.
The Battlefield before the Canadians, 1914–1916 was titled exactly as such. no correction made.
he Gunners of Vimy Ridge: 'We are Hammering Fritz to Pieces was titled exactly as such. no correction made.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Old Wine in New Bottles": A Comparison of British and Canadian Preparations for the Battle of Arras" should really have the double quotation marks around "Old Wine in New Bottles" changed to single quotation marks for better nesting.
For "'Old Wine in New Bottles': A Comparison of British and Canadian Preparations for the Battle of Arras" I've changed the nesting but do note that that is not how the source is presented.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NOT A MAN FELL OUT AND THE PARTY MARCHED INTO ARRAS SINGING": THE ROYAL GUARD AT THE UNVEILING OF THE VIMY MEMORIAL, 1936" needs to be reduced from all caps, and it looks like there's a quotation mark mismatch in there.
"Not A Man Fell Out and the Party Marched Into Arras Singing": The Royal Guard and the Unveiling of the Vimy Memorial, 1936 Correction made.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second part of any source is review is related to the quality and reliability of the sources used and not just the formatting and presentation of those sources in citations. I've looked over everything, and I can't identify any that would fail to meet the requirements of a Featured Article. Imzadi 1979 → 12:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following up with the above Labattblueboy, but it doesn't have to be an "official translation", just an accurate one, to be useful.
I've translated a number of the titles.--Labattblueboy (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Image and source reviews are vital and necessary for any FAC but with little commentary on the other aspects of the article after a month it looks like consensus to promote will be a long time coming, so I'll be archiving this shortly. I'd like to see any outstanding image questions resolved before renominating here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Canadian_National_Vimy_Memorial/archive3&oldid=1087819937"