Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oswald Boelcke/archive1

Oswald Boelcke

 * Nominator(s): Georgejdorner (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is about...the progenitor of fighter aviation tactics, Oswald Boelcke. As one of the world's first flying aces, he ran up a string of 40 victories to become the world's leading ace before dying in an accident. As leader of one of the world's original fighter squadrons, he mentored many other aces. He is also considered the father of the German Air Force, which honors his legacy. His manual of tactics is still taught in aviation training.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Image review

 * Avoid sandwiching text between images
 * Moved Richthofen image left to eliminate sandwiching.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggest adding alt text
 * I lack the know-how, but I am educable.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wp:ALT has some more detail, but essentially what you would want to do is add alt with a description of what someone would be missing if they did not see the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Hauptmann_Boelcke.jpg: source link is dead, when and where was this first published?
 * Published or registered by US Copyright Office prior to 1 January 1927.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the date and source country it would be unusual for this to be registered by the US Copyright Office at that time. Was this published in Germany? In what form? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This was one of a series of propaganda postcards published by Sanke during the war and circulated by the German public. It is out of copyright in both Germany and the United States.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * File:M_50_13_aviatik_BI_à_Rambervillers.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
 * This is in the public domain in its country of origin, France. Can a photo be in public domain in one country, and copyrighted in another?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Without an author date of death we'd need another indication as to why it's PD in source country, but yes, it is possible for a work to be PD in one country and not another due to copyright treaties and legal differences. See WP:NUSC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M_50_13_aviatik_BI_%C3%A0_Rambervillers.jpg: "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer."
 * Is there some reason you do not read this easily available info instead of having me repeat it to you?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I read the easily available info, and repeating it is not helpful. What is missing is evidence supporting the claims made - unfortunately tagging is not always correct. For example, for this image the tag claims that the work is in the public domain because the author died at least 70 years ago, but the author is listed as unknown and the date of the work is such that the author could well have died more recently than 1953. So is there any evidence that the author did indeed die over 70 years ago? If no, is there evidence to support that the image is PD for another reason? Similarly for the other images, we need to be able to support that the licensing given is correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I realize it is not helpful, but it is what we have from WikiCommons. Apparently, you doubt them. I lack the expertise to judge who is correct, you or them, and do not know know how to find additional copyright information.
 * At this point, I must stand pat on my choice of graphics unless you have them eliminated from WikiMedia.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed illustration.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Otto_Parschau's_A-16-15_Eindecker.jpg: what's the publication date of the source?
 * June 1915 photo first published before 1923.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Where was it published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Info not supplied.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Replaced with photo donated under CC by Ronnir Macdonald.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Kruis_van_de_Orde_Pour_le_Mérite_1914.gif: what's the copyright status of the medal?
 * I was (and am) unaware that military medals can be copyrighted.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly they can, if they meet the threshold of originality. US military medals will generally be PD because US federal government works are generally PD, but this one is not American. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, copyright status of the Pour le Merite is subject to the copyright laws of 1740.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Erwin_Böhme.jpg: source links are dead, when and where was this first published?
 * 1916 photo published prior to 1921.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oswald_Boelcke_(ca._1916).jpg: "The Wartenburg Trust asserts that all the images in their collection were published in Europe as postcards or prints prior to 1921."
 * File:Manfred_von_Richthofen_(the_Red_Baron)_(12320674275).jpg: why does the uploader have the right to release this image under the given license? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Deleted dour Richthofen photo. Subbed in more flattering one. New photo is in US public domain.
 * File:Manfred_von_Richthofen_(the_Red_Baron)_(12320674275).jpg: why does the uploader have the right to release this image under the given license? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Deleted dour Richthofen photo. Subbed in more flattering one. New photo is in US public domain.

Given the discussion above I will need to oppose on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This opposition is unwarranted. NikkiMaria has issues with Wikimedia Commons, which is the source of the article's graphics. She hasn't given any suggestions or guidance for me to improve the situation. There cannot be a fair assessment if it is subject to unwritten rules by whim, but NikkiMaria's oppostion is based on such.
 * How about another assessor stepping in to make an assessment based on actual criteria? I would love the chance to consider suggestions for improvement.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The relevant criterion is WP:WIAFA#3: Images must follow the image use policy, which specifies that you can prove images claimed to be PD are PD. As noted above, this would require evidence, eg. that an image tagged as life+70 was created by someone who died over 70 years ago. Pinging for input. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Nikkimaria is right. The image must be public domain or freely licensed by the copyright holder, AND the licensing must be correct and supported by appropriate evidence. It's not enough to hypothesize that someone probably died long enough ago to make it public domain. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of right or wrong. It's a question of my being mystified by my fellow editors. Apparently, I cannot rely on using graphics from Commons for some inexplicable reason(s), but am required to have suitable illustrations. And no one is giving me so much as a hint of a solution.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The nominator seems to be misunderstanding how the acceptability of an image at FAC, or even on Wikipedia, is decided. Nikkimaria isn't. The guidelines do not seem "mysterious" to me and Nikkimaria seem to have pointed out the most relevant ones and, on a skim, to have interpreted them correctly. Their last comment seems to summarise policy well. is more experienced than me in this area and their comment above is a good succinct summary of the situation. Georgejdorner, with apologies for being blunt, you are wrong. Reread the policies and the FAC criteria and see if you can come up with ways of proving the acceptability of the images, or replacing them with acceptable ones. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Gog. The images need to be provably free to use, or to have good fair use rationales.  There are many images on Commons that aren't useable in FAs. (I've actually just done a lot of work into a copyright investigation that has resulted in quite a few CSA navy files getting deleted off of Commons. Hog Farm Talk 16:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I assumed in good faith that all Commons images were usable. And, based on my many past assessments, I expected a fair opportunity from other editors to correct any shortcomings before a ruling was made. I even expected I might get a bit of help if needed. I did not expect instant rejection, hostility, and after the fact explanations.
 * How about a ruling on which of the illustrations are acceptable? That way, I can remove unsuitable ones.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note
Leaving aside the images issue, this has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If this nomination is archived, does that mean it can never be considered for Feature Article status?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all George, some featured articles were nominated several times before gaining the bronze star. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * George, this is going to time out soon. See if you can't round up another reviewer or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
I've copyedited a bit; please revert if you disagree with any of the changes. I can find little to quibble with. Just one question: The article seems in excellent shape and I expect to support, perhaps after another read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "World War I having begun on 4 August": per our article, 4 August is the day the Germans invaded Belgium, but war between various participants had already been declared, starting 28 July.
 * Many thanks for the copy editing. None of your edits harmed anything, and most were useful. As for the date in question, I deleted it; in its context, it was a mere detail.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I saw the discussion of images above; if you don't mind a bit of outside advice, I would suggest that you don't wait for a response from an image reviewer, but instead remove anything that you can't be certain is usable.  The job of an image reviewer at FAC is only to assess whether the images pass -- they tend to do a lot of image reviewing and aren't necessarily available to help you resolve the problems, but they will point out what the problems are.  You're certainly right that it's a pity one can't rely on Commons, but I can assure that's happened to many other FAC nominators -- you just have to shrug and remove the unacceptable images, or, if you're confident that the image is in fact acceptable, you have to be able to show that. Best of luck with this nomination. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Non sequiturs are not objections. Objections I can answer. Statements repeating information I have already read...what's to answer?
 * I felt as though I walked against the grain into a revolving door and got slapped in the face. And I didn't even know the door was there.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)