Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ellis Wackett/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:53, 10 October 2009 [1].

Ellis Wackett edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Another RAAF Air Marshal but one best known as an engineer (as well as a pilot and the service's first parachute instructor). Currently a Good Article, and A-Class in the MilHist project; reckon it meets FAC criteria. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: an excellent article, in my opinion. I see no reason why it shouldn't be featured. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I reviewed this article at GA, and thought it excellent then. I have a couple of points for consideration at FA, but they do not affect my support of the article overall:
  • I still find this sentence awkward, especially the underlined parts. His new organisation caused some other tensions in the RAAF, with his commitment to [airworthiness] considerations frustrating pilots who found their flying time restricted by the introduction of more rigorous maintenance procedures, while supply officers feared being "outshone" by the new status accorded to engineers, and "black handers"—old-school technical officers who had risen through the ranks—regarded with disdain the prospect of an influx of "silly young blokes with degrees".
  • Tks for your review/support, Ruth. Heh, I know this one came up at GA but apart from a slight modification to make more like a list (below), I can only throw open to the field and say that I'm willing to take suggestions! Either version for me says what I want to say in a nice punchy manner but maybe there's a better way...
...His new organisation caused some other tensions in the RAAF: new airworthiness considerations frustrated pilots who found their flying time restricted by the introduction of more rigorous maintenance procedures; supply officers feared being "outshone" by the new status accorded to engineers; and so-called "black handers"—old-school technical officers who had risen through the ranks—regarded with disdain the prospect of an influx of "silly young blokes with degrees". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved. Plus, I'd add the so-called "black handers" etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly the sentence about his marriage should be woven into the last section on his legacy. It sticks out like a sore thumb where it is.
  • I'm going with precedent here: in every other military bio I've done, I put the marriage/children detail in its chronological place. I won't argue that sometimes it does 'stick out' a bit, however it seems to be the accepted way.... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There would be no article on Wackett himself if we were all concerned about precedent. ;) Think of all the precedents he broke! Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't fault you on that score...! I think chronological personal life snippets fit in reasonably well if they're at the beginning or end of paragraphs, as here. I know some bios put in a separate Personal Life section for all that but personally I think those 'stick out' - the only time I ever resorted to that was when I had no date for the subject's marriage, only the fact that he was married and had children. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is well-researched and well-written. It explains the context of Wackett's career (in various wars, introduction of jets, etc.), yet remains focused on the subject. I will leave it to others to determine image and MoS compliance. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source comments Refs, dabs, links all fine. RB88 (T) 12:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - meets FA criteria. Dincher (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review:
  • All images hosted on Wikimedia websites must be free for use in the USA, because that's where the sites are hosted and the WMF is incorporated. Oppose pending resolution of these. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, Stifle, could you give me an example of such an explanation? While you're at it, could you also explain why these pictures are suspect as far as US copyright is concerned but other pictures in Australian military articles—including ones you've reviewed recently such as in Henry Wells (general) and Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer)— are not? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The most usual information would be {{PD-US-1996}}, but I can't say for sure that it applies to these images. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I raised issues in the other FACs about image copyright where appropriate. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser about why File:JK0736ECWackett1953.jpg needs a US copyright statement but, for instance, File:JK0414Hewitt1952.jpg, which comes from a very similar and recently-promoted FA, does not. Has something changed in the past few weeks? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ian Rose asked for feedback on the images at WT:FAC. I agree with Stifle here. All images hosted on Commons must be PD in both the US and the host country - that is why the additional information is necessary. Nothing has changed recently and I see that Stifle did not raise the same issue with the previous article when he should have. I assume it is the kind of oversight we all make, especially when we do a lot of reviews. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I must say that, in the nine FACs I have been through, I have never once been asked to provide a rational on a file's entry on how/why it is not copyrighted in the USA, particularly for pre-1945 images—such as two of the above—which includes image reviews from multiple users, including Stifle, and I'm sure Ian could say the same. Would it just be easier if Ian moved the post-1945 images to en.Wiki? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is best to host the images on Commons so that users on all 250+ projects can use them, so, no, moving them to en.wiki is not ideal. Images that are hosted on en.wiki can only be used on en.wiki. Awadewit (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Tks for your comment, Bryce, en.wiki came to my mind too. Awadewit, I agree Commons is the ideal, which is why I put these images there in the first place, given I'd never encountered any issues previously with US copyright concerns. I believe this article is more worthwhile with the photos than without, so can you suggest a better alternative to migrating the post-war images to en.wiki, given it appears that only the two pre-1946 images appear to comply with {{PD-US-1996}}? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Actually images uploaded locally here must still be free to use in the USA, where the site is hosted; our policies don't require them to also be free in their home countries. So migrating the images that are PD in Australia but not in the USA to enwiki won't save them. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Perhaps not, but a migration to en.wiki and a fair use rational might be the best alternative. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, File:JK0414Hewitt1952.jpg was an oversight and I've now nominated it for deletion as it is copyrighted through 2047 in the USA. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chiming in as another image reviewer, I have to say that I agree with what Stifle said at 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC). NW (Talk) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Australian Government, the copyright owner, is publicly displaying the image online labelled "Copyright expired - public domain" I can't see them suing anybody for any copyright violation anywhere... this discussion seems to say that under US law, these images may still be under copyright, should the owner care to assert their rights in the US. In this case the owner appears to have renounced any such rights globally, in which case this discussion appears purely academic. ??? Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to where it says the owner has renounced the rights globally? Stifle (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said "appears to have renounced..." : I don't claim to be a legal expert. Here's the link : http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/JK0414 Rcbutcher (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the image says 'Copyright expired' not once but twice, surely that would be enough to use the photo in some capacity? Skinny87 (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Skinny. At this point I think we have to confirm the categories of image here, and I'd appreciate it if our image experts could work with me on this rather than tarring every picture with the same brush, as seems to have occurred in the first instance. It'd also be great if we could hear more in the way of potential solutions to the image concerns, as at least four are of particular interest to me, namely the portrait at the top plus one image each illustrating the early, WWII and post-war phases of his career, and if the issues raised are legit then I'm prepared to take all necessary action to ensure those concerns are overcome. As I see it, there are 3 types of image here:

  1. Those satisfying PD-Australia and PD-US-1996 by virtue of being taken before 1946, i.e. File:P01817.004SeaGullA9-5.jpg and File:An004232JonesECWackettBurnett1941.jpg. I can't agree with Stifle that these need a special explanation of why they're out of copyright in the US, otherwise every single PD-Australia image would need the same thing. Such a change to previous practice can hardly be passed off as a case of "it's always been this way".
  2. Those satisfying PD-Australia but not, on the surface, PD-US-1996, because they were taken after 1946, i.e. File:JK0736ECWackett1953.jpg and File:JK0744ECWackett1953.jpg. Here I'm with Rod and Skinny that the AWM's positive assertion that they are out of copyright (in other words the AWM is proactively placing them in the public domain, not simply leaving it to us to make that determination because of their age) also negates any US copyright concerns. The AWM's message is not "public domain - but only in Australia", it's plain and simple "public domain". The two pre-1946 images also bear this assertion but it's on these post-1946 images that it becomes important.
  3. That satisfying PD-Australia but not PD-US-1996, i.e. File:ECWackett1958.jpg, because there is no positive assertion of being in the public domain since it comes from a book rather than the AWM, and is credited to the RAAF. I think every bio, particularly a featured article, should have a good quality portrait of its subject, and this is the only one I've located of Ellis Wackett. So far we've had suggestions that we could get round the Commons issue by hosting on en.wiki, or by asserting fair use given the lack of other portraits (let alone ones that illustrate so well why he was nicknamed "Punch"). Again I ask Awadewit and colleagues, please suggest what can get us around the issue so this article has a decent portrait of its subject? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure when I said that images taken before 1946 need "a special explanation of why they're out of copyright in the US", and if I did, I don't think I agree with myself (-:. An explanation, yes, and that would normally take the form of the template {{PD-US-1996}}.
    • If the source website says something to the effect of "public domain" or "copyright released", I would take that as sufficient to tag the images {{PD-release}}.
    • If there is no free image which covers a certain purpose, there may be a case for a fair use rationale. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone through the images in question to see what can be said about their status.
    I've struck my opposition on the good-faith assumption that the latter image will be either removed or retagged as fair use. However, most of these issues could, and probably should, have been resolved before coming to FAC (-: Stifle (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming to the party, Stifle - that's appreciated. I'll look into a fair-use rationale for the 1958 portrait. On your last point, I agree wholeheartedly that images should be properly tagged before FAC, but again this was the first time the US copyright issue had come up, even for someone who averages around one FAC per month... ;-) Re. the 1941 picture, I'd inadvertently lumped that with the AWM images when in fact that wasn't the source but it is, as you say, okay in the US for other reasons. On the three AWM pictures you've tagged, the only thing that confuses me is the slightly different PD parameter you've added for the two 1953 images as opposed to the Seagull one. The last-mentioned makes more sense to me, since the one on the 1953 images comes out as "I, the copyright holder...", which seems out of place - should it not be the same for all three? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that last bit; Commons and enwp templates aren't fully consistent. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what's happening here with WP:MOSNUM; most numbers are digits, while ages are spelled out. Pls review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it was consistent in that it 'worded' numbers under a hundred, and I believe the MOS allows some discretion here, which I generally exercise to offer some relief from the plethora of other numbers. However I'm not that fussed if it's all still consistent, as you've made it in your ce, Sandy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK ... I'm not fussed either, as long as it was consistent; revert me if you prefer! By the way, promoted it already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 10 October 2009 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ellis_Wackett/archive1&oldid=1138459421"