Talk:HNoMS Kjell/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 16:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Parsecboy (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Some initial questions:
- Was this vessel a member of a class?
- Yes, it is a 2.-class torpedo boat, as already stated in the first sentence.
- Sort of what I'm getting at is, is that article correct? One generally doesn't count torpedo boats built in the 1880s and 1910s (the latter of which displaced twice that of the earlier vessels) as the same class. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships does not count them as such (in fact, Conway's refers to her as part of the three-ship Teist class, along with Skarv), so I'm wondering what the sources for that grouping are. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a 2.-class torpedo boat, as already stated in the first sentence.
- There's a dubious tag on the boat's namesake - can you address that?
- www.german-navy.de is not a reliable source - I don't read Norwegian, so I can't evaluate those online sources, but I'd like to see justification that they meet the criteria.
- I just asked McLennonSon to check the quality of the sources. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:HNoMS Kjell.jpg and File:Altmark Incident.jpg - per the copyright tags, these need the original publication (as far as I can tell). Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- From what I read, these images are in the public domain, aren't they? L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I understand copyright law, we need to be able to prove that the photo was published without crediting the author - the claim that "hey, I found this old photo online and don't know the author" is not the same, and it wouldn't exactly hold up in court (which is something we need to be concerned about - there have been successful lawsuits against re-users of Wikimedia content that was incorrectly labeled as public domain - granted, there likely isn't much chance of that in cases like this, but we still need to follow policy). Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Parsecboy, on both files it says "Under the former photo law, protection ended 25 years after creation, provided that more than 15 years had passed since the photographer's death or the photographer is unknown. The image is in the public domain if this older term already had expired as of 29 June 1995." That seems to be in the public domain to me. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Right, but the critical piece we're missing is when did the photographer die? Generally, anonymous exceptions to copyright law require the photograph to have been originally published with no credit - you and me not knowing a hundred years later is not the same thing. Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Parsecboy, on both files it says "Under the former photo law, protection ended 25 years after creation, provided that more than 15 years had passed since the photographer's death or the photographer is unknown. The image is in the public domain if this older term already had expired as of 29 June 1995." That seems to be in the public domain to me. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I understand copyright law, we need to be able to prove that the photo was published without crediting the author - the claim that "hey, I found this old photo online and don't know the author" is not the same, and it wouldn't exactly hold up in court (which is something we need to be concerned about - there have been successful lawsuits against re-users of Wikimedia content that was incorrectly labeled as public domain - granted, there likely isn't much chance of that in cases like this, but we still need to follow policy). Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- From what I read, these images are in the public domain, aren't they? L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I guess you're right, but what can we do about it? The source of the file is a nonexistent page. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- The images will have to go unless we can demonstrate that they're free to use. I had a look through history.navy.mil, as they have a fairly substantial photo archive, but there was nothing I could find on Kjell, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: - I'm wondering if you've lost track of this review. Can you let me know where we're at? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I'm a bit stuck here - I don't have Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships so I can't check the class of the boat, I don't read Norwegian so I can't check the quality of the sources, and I guess the images have copyright problems, so I guess you can fail it. Thanks for taking the time to do the review. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Shoot me an email and I can forward you scans of the relevant pages from Conway's (though I won't have access to my e-version until tonight at the earliest), and we can go from there. I'd rather we put in the effort to get the article to GA if you're at all interested - HNoMS Mjølner (1868) looks awful lonely ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)