Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian National Vimy Memorial/archive4

< 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2016 [1].

Canadian National Vimy Memorial edit

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Canadian World War I memorial in Northern France, the 80th anniversary or the unveiling is this July. This article has been previous advanced for consideration and the most recent nomination in Feb 16 was rejected largely due to concerns associated with imagery copyright.

After a couple months wait, OTRS tickets have recently been completed on the Commons for a couple of these images (File:Vimy Memorial - Foundation construction.jpg, File:Vimy Memorial - half finished statue and plaster models.jpg) which effectively confirmed that images with a status of expired are released into the public domain by Canada (with a requirement to credit). Citations are improved on another (File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg and a the painting at the bottom of the article was confirmed as acceptable to the Commons via deletion request Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/22#File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg (closed by a sysop).Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looking really good; will read through properly and review.

At the risk of prolonging the image pain, a couple of quick thoughts:

  • File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg is justified under a UK anonymous tag. UK law requires that this is based on reasonable research into the identity; this is reflected in the wording on the copyright tag, notes that "if you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." No information is currently provided, which invalidates the UK copyright tag.
This image is a Gallaher cigarette card from a series of Victoria Cross winners title "Victoria Cross Heroes". This particular image comes from the 5th series. The New York Public Library record of this object is the best I've seen yet with regards to completeness (complete with electronic images of both front and back) but even they acknowledge its not perfect. The only potential author of mention is Central Press, which I've take to assume from researching (The Press Photo History Project) is Central Press Photo Ltd or London but there is no mention of an individual either as photographer or artist that completed the colouring. I researched the records of other cards in the series and got no further ahead. The only hit in the online records or the UK National Archive was [2] for a card held at the Museum of English Rural Life but with no author details available and a search of the Imperial War Museum Records[3] drew a complete blank.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per the copyright tag, this information needs to be added to the image description on the file itself for the claim to be valid. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Vimy Ridge - Watkins memorial.JPG has a copyright tag for the photograph, but not for the owner of the underlying copyrighted text and the memorial itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Memorial is labeled as being Veterans Affairs Canada, consequently the Canadian government. I think it would be questionable whether a threshold of originality even exists here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The memorial mainly consists of the two paragraphs of text that were photographed, though, and they carry copyright. A Canadian Government copyright tag would therefore be needed here. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For Canada the threshold requires that a work "not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise". There is absolutely no hope of this memorial holding copyright under Canadian law. The "sweat of the brow" doctrine that exist for instance in the UK is firmly rejected in Canada as being too low of a standard for copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph is of two paragraphs of text (one in French, the other English). These are subject to copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The text is firmly the "short word combinations" scope for Canada. Further this is a statement of facts which in Cnaada does not meet the requisite level of creativity for copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Labatt, I don't agree with you about the short word combinations point; Canadian copyright law doesn't give copyright to titles, names, slogans, short word combinations etc., but the items copied here are 104 word paragraphs. While you cannot copyright a fact in Canada, expressions of a fact - for example, a paragraph of text - are certainly copyright. The material would similarly be copyright in the US where the Commons is hosted. The File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg issue still hasn't been fixed either, - the image description hasn't been altered as per the issue raised above, rendering the UK tag invalid. Reluctantly oppose at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The photo of the Watkins memorial isn't so central to the article to base approval/opposition on it alone. For it what I'll do is remove it from the article for now, send a formal request to Veterans Affairs Canada and if they come back with release that can be confirmed via a commons OTRS ticket. Would that be a satisfactory way forward.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hchc2009: Still waiting for a response from Veterans Affairs Canada. I've placed a note on the image page on the Commons but the image is removed from the article until a response is received.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll copy the text to the Jones cigarette card photo. I hope that addresses that concern.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support in terms of sources and academic background; I haven't done a copyediting check though. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As before: 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) 23:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did a little more; I made it down to Restoration and rededication. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reading the commentary at the deletion discussion for File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg, I find the arguments against it being free far more compelling than those in favour. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a vigorous motion to delete following the last FAC and the conclusion was to keep, the conclusion having been made by a sysop. I'm not sure more could be expected in terms of a confirming review.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "conclusion" was that life+50 applies; if that's so, absent any other information, this can't possibly be PD in the US, because that would mean copyright expired after 1996 and thus that US copyright was restored. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately the decision is not my call but I don't make it a habit of questioning such conclusions. Maybe @Jdforrester:, as closing admin, can offer further clarity on that discussion. Nevertheless, the image isn't so central as to merit being such a distraction so I've removed it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey edit

  • King's position received unanimous support from both sides of the House and—after the Canadian federal election, 1921, there were three major parties represented. What does "both" refer to?
  • both referred to government and opposition. I've simplified the text to simply state unanimous support.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1997 ceremony at the memorial was attended by retired Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and at least 5000 people. Subsequent smaller-scale ceremonies were held at the memorial in 1997 and 2002.—meaning there was another memorial in '97 after BM visited? And were the 5000 Canadians?
  • Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Mulroney ceremony should read 1992 not 1997. Correction made.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest adding a mention of the upcoming centenary commemoration of the battle. It seems as if the official programme has not yet been released by Veteran Affairs Canada (UPDATE: found this page), but some additional mention would be good. Possibly of interest (though maybe not suitable for the article) is this.
  • At this point the only possible mention is that Canada intends to hold a 100th anniversary with a service at the memorial on 9 April 2017. I think we should wait until there is more to say.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'Sociocultural influence' section has a 'when?' tag in it.
Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'll add comments here as I go through the article; I should be able to finish the review tonight.

  • "The commission committee initially took the position of placing the monument in Belgium on Hill 62": a bit long-winded; how about "The commission committee initially recommended placing..."?
  • "King's position received unanimous support of the House": either "received the unanimous support of the House" or "received unanimous support in the House".
  • "the ruins of the Diocletian's Palace": surely it should be "the ruins of Diocletian's Palace"?
  • "$2,779.18 in present terms": needs an "as of" date; perhaps "in 2016 dollars"?
  • "Immediately following the Second World War very little attention was paid to the Battle of Vimy Ridge or the Vimy Memorial, having been overshadowed by more contemporary events": it's clear what is meant, but "having been" has no subject, since the previous sentence is in the passive voice. How about "The events of Second World War overshadowed both the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the Vimy Memorial, and they received very little attention in the immediate post-war years"?
  • "The site's rough terrain and unearthed unexploded munitions": is this what's intended? The munitions have been unearthed but not removed?
  • "The figure of a cloaked young female stands on top and at the centre of the front wall and overlooks the Douai Plains. The woman has her head bowed...": suggest "The figure of a cloaked young woman..." and then "She has her head bowed..."
  • "the names of the 11,285 Canadians killed in France and whose final resting place is unknown": does this refer to both those who have known graves and those who do not? If so, I'd make it "...France, along with those whose..."; if it refers only to those with no known grave, which is implied later in the paragraph, then I'd cut the "and".
  • You have "as a consequence" twice in quick succession at the end of the "Vimy memorial" section.
  • "identified the Moroccan Division as the only divisions where": singular or plural "divisions"?
  • "that is widely published in military and general histories of Canada": suggest "widely repeated".
  • The "Sociocultural influence" section has three "X suggests" within three consecutive sentences; can at least one be reworded? Perhaps run the two sentences quoting Hucker together?
  • "it was so designated, one of only two outside of Canada, in 1997": perhaps "it was so designated in 1997, and is one of only two outside of Canada".
  • Suggest starting a new paragraph at "The memorial is not without its critics"; that's a long paragraph and it would make a natural break.
  • Is the Jane Urquhart novel sufficiently notable to be included? I know nothing about it; I ask because it's common to see novels that mention or include elements of an article's topic listed in that article, even if there is no particularly notability or third party mention of the novel in that context, so I'm just checking to see if another source mentions it. In fact, that sentence doesn't appear to be sourced.

-- That's everything I can see. This is very cleanly written, and I expect to support once these minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Labattblueboy, can you update us on progress with Mike's comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I've struck the points that are already taken care of. If Labattblueboy is busy IRL, I can make a couple of minor tweaks to address the few remaining points, and I'd be glad to support then. It would be a pity to see this fail when it's clearly on the verge of promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly, Mike -- it's been open so long already I don't mind waiting a little bit longer to try and put it to bed in the best way possible... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I went ahead and fixed what I saw as the remaining issues, and am now happy to support promotion. Labattblueboy, if you feel anything in that edit is a mistake, ping me if you'd like to discuss. Regardless, it's a fine article, and I'll be glad to see it acquire featured status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had previously completed some but I was working our of a poor internet connection on a tiny phone and so am very thankful for Mike's remaining edits.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It's high-quality work; glad I could help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, I re-added the Urquhart sentence, and provided a reference, in this edit. I raised this with Mike on his talk page and he was fine with that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 23 August 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Canadian_National_Vimy_Memorial/archive4&oldid=736365020"