Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Winter of Discontent/archive1

Winter of Discontent[edit]

This was recently the UK collaboration of the fortnight and underwent major improvements bringing it I think to featured-standard. (I didn't do any of these changes, but will try to fix reasonable objections). The only reservation I have is that it has proved impossible apparently to obtain free images of the strikes - I think though, as famous historical images, these qualify as one of the stronger reasons for fair use, alongside covers of books and suchforth. Morwen - Talk 19:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support but then I did write it. I anticipate there may problems with the images. David | Talk 19:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose images. They are all copyvios! Dunc|☺ 20:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. There's one that might be public domain. --Carnildo 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. If you feel they are copyvios, can I suggest take it to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems and get them deleted entirely! I don't see why we should tolerate copyvios on non-featured articles. Morwen - Talk 21:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The images Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg, Image:Callaghanwaitingatchurch.jpg, Image:Fordstrikers.jpg, Image:Outofpetrol1979.jpg, Image:Callaghancrisisiv.jpg, Image:Dayofaction220179.jpg, Image:Cohsepicket.jpg, Image:Gmwucemeterypicket.jpg, Image:Armyambulances79.jpg, Image:Crisiswhatcrisis.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If fair use images must be used, then the images need information on their sources and copyright owners, and need an explanation for why fair use can be claimed for each page that the image is used on. --Carnildo 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a general principle without any specific implications. "if at all possible" and "must" are vague, and could demand removal of all the images or just a few. Do you have any specific suggestions, as to, say, which images are more defensible, or how we might obtain free images of events that happened nearly 30 years ago? Morwen - Talk 21:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - For getting free images, you could contact the copyright holders and ask them to release the image under the GFDL or an acceptable Creative Commons license. You could look for images that aren't currently in the article, and ask the copyright owners to release the images. You could check places with known free-content images: Wikimedia Commons, ibiblio, the US government archives, etc. I'm not sure about British copyright law, but it's even possible that there are some images that were never copyrighted in the first place.
  - If you can't get free images, then you should trim the images used down to a minimum, and follow the rules for fair use. I'd say that the important images for the article are Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg (a good lead image), Image:Fordstrikers.jpg (the Ford strike seems to have triggered most of the mess), Image:Dayofaction220179.jpg (a major event), Image:Armyambulances79.jpg (a major event).
    - If you look at the talk pages I have appealed for images from anyone around at the time. The pictures of the Ford strikers and the Day of Action are video stills from ITN; the rubbish in Finsbury Park and the Army Ambulances are probably from a large photo library which I have not yet identified. They were printed in Whitaker's Almanack for 1980. My impression is that UK copyright law is actually slightly stricter than US. David | Talk 08:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object in addition to the images issues, the lead is underdeveloped too.--nixie 23:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you suggest how it should be improved? I have expanded it a bit. David | Talk 08:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm a passing stranger who was interested in the topic, and that is why I am here. The text is informative and entertaining, and thorough. And I was impressed by the large number and diverse range of images. If the problems with regards image ownership were resolved - and I take the image policy seriously - I would support this article immediately. Without the images, or with relatively mundane stock photographs of the people involved, 10 Downing St, a lorry, striking people in general, I would still support it, although I would be less enthusiastic. If only Wikipedia had been around in the late 1970s, we would have photographs of all these things.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]