Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fort Ticonderoga/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 Karanacs 14:55, 5 May 2009 [1].

Fort Ticonderoga

edit
Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 14:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This year is the 400th anniversary of the discovery of Lake Champlain by the eponymous European, and the 250th anniversary of several events in the French and Indian War, some of which are relevant to Fort Ticonderoga.

I'd like to believe this article is ready for FA consideration (as my first nomination was); it's been through MILHIST ACR and received additional attention since. Thanks for your time and feedback. Magic♪piano 14:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That link was good back in the ACR; oh well, gone now. Magic♪piano 14:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...yes, it was. :/ —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just tried refining the reference to the NHL summary webpage about the site. It should not be asserted that the webpage is the "listing" of the site on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places or that the webpage is the designation of the place as a National Historic Landmark. Another example FA with a NHL summary webpage reference, formatted differently, is Joseph Priestley House. Perhaps that could be adapted. But, the titles of references in both my version here and in that example (as "Joseph Priestley House National Historic Landmark Summary Listing") is not exactly the title of the webpage. Not sure how to present best. doncram (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review

Noble Comments - Hm, just reading through the lead, I find some problems: "an aura of invincibility", "ill-considered", "merely" are all rather POV. "During the American Revolutionary War..." That sentence seems to be almost a run-on. "became a stop on tourist routes of the area" feels rather informal. And: "Early in the 20th century, the fort was restored by its private owners, and is now operated by a private foundation" You repeat "private" twice in this sentence. There are other similar corrections to make in the body of the article, but these are just examples. Noble Story (talk • contributions)

  • I'll agree that "ill-considered" is POV (and have removed it), although there are probably few historians who would disagree with the assessment. I'm uncertain why you think "aura of invincibility" is somehow POV.
  • I've recast the Rev War elements in the lead, and removed the superfluous "private".
  • I'm not sure how to respond to your comment about being a "stop on a tourist route".
I will be copyediting the rest of the article, just waiting for more feedback. Magic♪piano 15:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "aura of invincibility" is hardly a phrase used for just anything. Maybe you have a ref or two to justify the use of that kind of term? Noble Story (talk • contributions)
True. See the Wayne quote in the Saratoga campaign section. If you want historical perspective supporting this idea, I can also pull in a quote I used in Capture of Fort Ticonderoga about Ti being the "Gibraltar of America". The idea that Ti was an invincible bastion had a great deal of currency in 1777, and its defense was complicated because of it. (This is an idea that I've put more detail on in Battle of Ticonderoga (1777). If you think the treatment here is inadequate to support that phrase, I can certainly elaborate.) Magic♪piano 14:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • "The site controls a portage between Lake Champlain and Lake George that was strategically important during the 18th-century colonial conflicts between Great Britain and France, as it controlled commonly-used trade routes between the English-controlled Hudson River Valley and the French-controlled Saint Lawrence River Valley." Too many uses of the word "control" in this one long sentence.

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I went ahead and fixed some issues with the lede, such as two overlong sentences and use of peacock terms like "aura of invincibility". Pretty darn good article and an interesting read. --mav (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I did some copy editing. The article is clearly written and well organized, in my opinion, and carefully referenced. There probably too many External links and I am thinking of removing them. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your edits and support. Magic♪piano 23:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to image concerns as follows:

  • File:The Victory of Montcalms Troops at Carillon by Henry Alexander Ogden.JPG: in which media was this painting published in before 1923? If this painting was first published between 1923 and 2002, then it is not in public domain. In this case, I can find no earlier illustration of it in either book or catalogue than p. 81 of Ticonderoga 1758 (2000), which means that it would be copyrighted until 31 December 2047.[2] Note that publication of a painting means the distribution or public exhibition of its copies.[3] Hence a painting that exists on its own is not considered published by any means.
    • The original upload mentions this book as a source. I actually am intending to visit a library containing it to see what, if anything, it has to say about provenance of this image. Considering the artist was nearly 70 in 1923, and he was an illustrator whose other works were generally used in books, it's certainly plausible that this painting was published in some form before then. Magic♪piano 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was published earlier, but copyrighted. Earliest known publication of this painting is as the cover of the first volume, first issue of American Heritage (September 1949).[4] The publication was copyrighted,[5] which has been renewed in 1976 under registration R641454.[6] (p. 394.) This painting is not in public domain until 2045. Verifiability matters here. Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that verifiability is what matters. I'm just pointing out that there is (to me, at least) a sufficient body of evidence that assertions of "first publication" dating to the 1940s are somewhat suspect. I will point out that the Chartrand book's cover bears this image; Chartrand describes the image as "an early 20th-century-painting" in the credits. I've sent email to the curator at the Fort Ticonderoga Museum, which owns the painting, with questions about provenance and publication history. Magic♪piano 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • One more note: the definitions section of the copyright code also says this: The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed. I (not a lawyer) would read this to mean the painting itself is considered a copy for the purposes of the act. Magic♪piano 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Creation does not equate publication. A painting created in 1920 does not mean it was published in 1920. I have already considered Chartrand's book (in my first comment); as such I see no relevance in it here again. It cannot prove the first publishing, nor is it the first publishing of this painting. Publication is defined as "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Note the plural, not singular. Jappalang (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • While I'm waiting for more feedback from the fort's curator, I've also invited the original WP uploader to comment here, but he appears to be only intermittently active. If I do not see satisfactory resolution by Sunday, I will remove the image from this article in order to not impede the nomination. Magic♪piano 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Fortticonderoga inside.jpg: why is this image tagged with commons:Template:PD-self and commons:Template:Copyrighted free use? Which is the original (and correct) license? Can an admin check what license this image was released under when it was on Wikipedia?
    • I'll see if I can get an admin to poke at this. Magic♪piano 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Antandrus has kindly retrieved the Wikipedia file history:
      22:06, 29 May 2006 . . Ebedgert (talk | contribs | block) 640×480 (99,036 bytes) (This photograph was taken by Wikipedia member Ebedgert.)
    • He also retrieved the page from that date, which reads as follows:
      == Summary == This photograph was taken by Wikipedia member Ebedgert. == Licensing == {{PD-self}}
    • I interpret this to mean that {{Copyrighted free use}} was incorrectly added when it was moved to Commons, so I have updated the Commons page accordingly. Magic♪piano 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:New York Adirondack.svg: derived from File:New York blank.svg, from which public domain map or compilation of sources is this based on?

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm the creator of File:New York blank.svg. I can't remember now what map I traced it from; it was probably one of the public-domain ones at the Perry-Castañeda collection. But it doesn't really matter - information like the locations of coastlines and boundaries isn't copyrightable. Only the creative content of maps (the use of various colors, fonts, and symbols, etc.) can be copyrighted, and this image contains none of the creative content of the map it was traced from. The map is thus completely free to use and to make derivatives like File:New York Adirondack.svg from. —Angr 12:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boundaries or not, Commons deem it as copyrightable, per commons:Commons:Image casebook#Maps: "Maps are always copyright works unless they are old enough to be in the public domain. You may not upload copies of copyright maps to Commons, nor may you trace or even re-draw such a map yourself. Any map you create yourself must be wholly based on public domain sources or on sources that have been released under a suitable free license." Tracing obviously does not apply to colors or fonts, and no exceptions for boundaries or coastlines are given (such lines are subject to the discretion of cartographers to omit or go into fine detail). Regardless, since you have brought up the Perry-Castañeda collection, might the base map of NY be the map you used? Jappalang (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think so. It looks familiar. But what the Commons link says about tracing maps is simply mistaken. —Angr 14:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, I shall note the map as the base map for the blank and strike the issue. As for the Commons ruling, I am just following what it say. If it is wrong, someone should voice out at the Admins board there to get the ruling changed. Jappalang (talk) 14:14, 28 April 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/Fort_Ticonderoga/archive1&oldid=1089085027"