Jump to content

Talk:HMS Otranto/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Please Note. The dates and information for the 1909, 1910 voyages of the Otranto do not tally with the ticket of my Grandfather, Robert Love who sailed for Sydney on 21 January 1910, by which time we are told the ship had done two runs to Australia and was cruising the Mediterranean Sea, to return to the Australia run in 1911. I doubt that even a new steamship could do two such runs since its launch in July, 1909. Greg McGuire, Otranto Descendent, Sydney Australia. Ref; Passenger Contract Ticket No.127, Orient Line, 17th Jan 1910. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.227.144 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch[reply]

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 01:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • There she remained until where? On the run? In the UK?checkY
  • Who was Captain Edwards? He is introduced without explanation.checkY
  • Same sentence, the grammar doesn't really work, there is something missing.
  • link ValparaisocheckY
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • a few overlinks, Australia, bridge, amidships and Belfast.checkY
  • 1600 should be 16:00checkY
  • suggest use of template:circa for the laid down field, rather than a ?checkY
  • suggest the fact that the passengers were American troops be included in the leadcheckY
  • Lifeboats and Officer of the Deck seem to be inappropriately capitalisedcheckY
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. no issues
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • the licensing on the two images aren't quite right. The infobox one doesn't have an author, so how we know it was taken by the UK govt is beyond me. The second one looks ok, but the licensing needs to point to collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/20460.html rather than Flickr, because the RMG is the real source. Suggest asking Nikki for assistance on the infobox one.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. good coverage of civil and naval service, captions ok
7. Overall assessment. On hold for seven days for remaining points to be addressed Passing, all criteria now met.

(Moving this discussion outside the confines of the review box) The key thing for me is that the IWM charges for commercial use of all its images, which means that they hold the copyright, regardless of the identity of the photographer and any gov't service. Oscar Parkes himself was a RN doctor, but I don't know if he was officially assigned to take photos or not. He was the editor of Jane's Fighting Ships for a time so he could well have been taking photos for his own purposes before donating his collection, possibly including photos that he didn't take, to the IWM. I'm quite comfortable in believing that his donation included all rights to his photos. As for the ones that he may have purchased, without knowing the photographer's identity we can never know what the true situation is. They could well be somebody's weekend snap or an official photo for which the documentation has been lost. And with that ambiguity, I'm not comfortable in a strict interpretation that says we cannot use any IWM photo that lacks documentation that it was taken by an official photographer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IWM charges for commercial use of all of its images, even where it doesn't own the copyright - with photos that are unambiguously PD. That's what I meant in saying that their licensing description isn't helpful, because it doesn't allow us to draw conclusions about what the actual copyright status of the image is. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that any assumptions (as distinct from known facts) about the authorship or donation status of a particular image should be noted on the image page. Otherwise, anyone coming across the image would assume it is entirely ok. That was my original point, and based on Nikki's comments, I think I'm entirely justified sticking to it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Passing, well done as usual. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]