Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/D'Oliveira affair/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 Ian Rose 16:48, 5 April 2014 [1].

D'Oliveira affair edit

Nominator(s): Cliftonian (talk) and Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basil D'Oliveira was a fairly famous cricketer, but this isn't just another cricket article. He was far more widely known for the events described in this article, where his 1968 inclusion in an England team to tour his native South Africa effectively ended South Africa's participation in international cricket until 1991. These events are still fairly well-known, even outside cricket circles, in the UK today. This article is currently a GA and we have worked on extensively on it for a while. It had an excellent PR, and any further comments would be welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cliftonian. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note on images: PD images from this period in the UK are hard to come by. We have included a Fair Use image of D'Oliveira from 1968, which we think is justified. There is a recent FA precedent at the Profumo affair, when it was argued here that an image of the main "character" was justified. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As one of the peer reviewers I had my few quibbles thoroughly dealt with there (though I still think "ramifications" in the lead would be better as a plainer "consequences", but I do not press the point). The nominators have marshalled the facts with surgical precision, and have been exemplary in their neutral reporting of this toe-curling episode in English sporting and political history. The prose is compellingly readable, the sourcing broad and the referencing comprehensive. I am no expert on WP's rules for images, but I support the use of the non-free picture of D'Oliveira, as the article would look frankly silly without a photograph of him. I cannot imagine a better article about this gruesome saga. – Tim riley (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the very kind words and the support, Tim! —Cliftonian (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather belatedly (I missed it earlier, and forgot afterwards!) there are no more ramifications in the lead! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As the GA reviewer, I felt that it was FAC ready even at that point, and that's something I virtually never say. Long yes, but a compelling read that doesn't feel bogged down. Wizardman 23:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind words and the support Wizardman. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Cliftonian's words of thanks for the above reviewers and supports. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (sorry I didn't do this during PR): If I don't mention an image, it's fine.

  • File:Basil D'Oliveira vs Australia, 1968.jpg - If this is a Getty image, per WP:NFCC #2 (as expanded on by WP:NFC#UUI) this should not be used. WP:NFC#UUI point seven includes "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." as an example of an unacceptable use of non-free content. Do we have any other images of D'Oliveira that we can use, or are there any that are not press agency/photo agency image?
  • Rather annoyingly all the pictures of him I seem to be able to find online are press images. If we cannot use one of these I imagine we would have to rely on somebody donating one. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I correct in thinking pictures more than 50 years old are okay as they are PD in SA, albeit not in the US? My understanding is that they need to be PD in the US for Commons—does this also apply if the image is only uploaded to the English Wikipedia? If so we should be able to find and use something from early in his career. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images on Commons have to be free in the source country and in the US, whereas images on English Wikipedia have to be free in the US at the very least. Owing to the URAA (the bane of my existence), which extended copyright on foreign works in 1996, many images that are PD in their country of origin are not able to be used on Wikipedia or Commons. There is discussion on Commons about rejecting the URAA considerations (very lengthy), but nothing of the sort on the English Wikipedia yet (i.e. URAA is still respected here, and must still be followed). Short answer: not okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm not convinced tat the photograph really is a Getty Image, I can't find anything that says he isn't. I'll do a bit of digging to see what else I can find, but I'm not hopeful and I suspect we might have to lose the lead image. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No biographies of D'Oliveira to check? "Cricket cards" (assuming they were made in the UK)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image update': The main biography contains lots of photographs... all of which are credited to press agencies. Sigh. No cards that have his image that I've been able to find. The only thing I've come up with is a photo from an old cricket magazine that has no photo credit whatsoever. It is just an image of D'Oliveira himself. Would that be OK? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be okay. Just write "Source does not indicate the copyright owner" when you upload. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The South African Copyright Act says (on p. 21, section 15, article 3): "The copyright in an artistic work shall not be infringed by its reproduction or inclusion in a cinematograph film or a television broadcast or transmission in a diffusion service, if such work is permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place." Since this is a street sign telling people "these public premises" are for whites only, it seems to me that it would come under this definition. In any case I find it hard to believe that this text would come under copyright. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current understanding on Commons is "Since section 15(3) does not mention photographs, there is no freedom of panorama exemption in South Africa that would permit photographs of artistic works to be taken without infringing the copyright in the works." Wonky, I agree (what is a film but a series of photographs?), but that's how it's being treated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case, I doubt this would be under the TOO in SA. The UK has a considerably lower TOO than the US. Now this may be under the TOO in the US, which would allow a local (Wikipedia only) upload, as our local files need only respect US copyright law. Again, though, I'm not sure if this would be enough to pass the TOO in the US. Moonriddengirl or Nikkimaria would probably know that best. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would guess that this would be PD as an edict of government, myself, in accordance with WP:PD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Commons the template PD-South-Africa-exempt seems to be only for "official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature or an official translation of such a text" (or images thereof); assuming these quotes are in the actual legislation, that might work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems logical to me as all this is is a public announcement of what was then the law (as hideous as that thought might seem to us now). —Cliftonian (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have the actual law, to check? If that's confirmed, this image would certainly be free enough for Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep; page 19, section 12, article 8(a): "No copyright shall subsist in official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or in official translations of such texts, or in speeches of a political nature or in speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings, or in news of the day that are mere items of press information". —Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I was unclear. Do we have a link to the law which regulates the "For use by white persons only" status of certain places (i.e. the actual apartheid-era segregation laws) so that we can see if the text is the same or similar to the text used in the sign we're discussing now? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Alright, the diction is essentially the same ("amenities" rather than "facilities", "public premises" instead of "public place", etc. etc.), so I think it would be safe to argue that there is not enough creativity to pass the TOO under US law. SA is a different story, but I think we can give this the benefit of the doubt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no public domain pictures of these two that are more recent, or that would cover the period. We are pretty much stuck with these pictures, unfortunately. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose (comments at PR) and images. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all your help on this one, particularly on the images (I hate images!), and for your support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I did my stuff at PR. Subject to resolution of the image issues above (and to a sources review which I will do) I am satisfied that this important article fully deserves promotion to FA, and I look forward to seeing it there. I saw D'Oliveira play several times in the 1970s, when he was a bit past his best but still a classy act. I also remember Allen, at his perch in the MCC Committee Room at Lord's, loudly complaining about the price of a cup of coffee. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for the kind words and the support, Brian, as well as the nice anecdote about Gubby that I think really speaks for a lot of these chaps. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all your help. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: All sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability. I notice that in the ref formatting the page ranges for the Oborne citations frequently overlap, e.g. refs 4 and 5, refs 38 and 39, and many similar. There may or may not be good reasons for this, but I thought I'd mention it. Otherwise, no issues on the sourcing. Brianboulton (talk)

I've merged a few references which will stand it, but I think the remaining ones need to be left. I'll have another look later to see if there are any others. Thanks for the review. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I looked at the article when it was at PR and didn't have any complaints about it then, and I certainly don't now. Another fine piece of cricket work here. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 1 April 2014 (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/D%27Oliveira_affair/archive1&oldid=1076191230"