Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R-1 tank/archive1

R-1 tank

 * Nominator(s): Lupishor (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, fellow editors! I have just published the R-1 tank article and I am attempting to promote it to the FA class. It's the first time I am doing this. I've read through the criteria and used multiple FAs as models, namely Panzer I and Verdeja (both of which are old nominations), as well as a more recent one—Union of Bulgaria and Romania. I hope my article is good enough to join the FA club. :)

Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: The Flickr photos that have been nominated for deletion have had their license changed by the uploader since then, which has led to the nominator withdraw their request. All of the article's other photos have been reviewed as well, their license having been considered adequate. Lupishor (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review—not passed
I see some serious issues with the image licensing in the article. A lot of the images are derived from photocopies with unknown authors. But reproduction of a two-dimensional work doesn't generate a new copyright, what we care about is the original photograph and whether it is in the public domain both in the source country and the United States, or the photographer / their heirs have agreed to release the photograph. (Some WWII photographs are public domain, but by no means all.) I can help with determining copyright status, but in general you have to know more information than you have provided, especially the author of the photograph and the first publication date. Also, for future reference, the WP:Volunteer Response Team should be contacted by third parties who own the copyright to media and want to release it under a free license.
 * On the other hand, the flickr photograph licensing looks acceptable since these are original works that have been released by the copyright holder.
 * Less important issue: what source was used to create File:TACAM R-1 historical reconstruction.png? Ideally it is stated in the image description for verifiability. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer, . I wasn't aware that the original image matters more than the photocopy. Considering that the three licenses that were used here can also be applied to the photos of the article in question, changing the license should solve the problem.
 * What exactly do you mean by what source was used to create File:TACAM R-1 historical reconstruction.png? Do you mean the program I used? If yes, I will just write it down in the image's description.
 * Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by what it says in PD-RO-photo. It says "since issuance", is that since creation or since publication? If the latter you need a publication date that's sufficiently early. Also, several of the captions indicate that the photographs were taken in Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovak requirements are different, to be in the public domain a photograph with no known author must have been published before 1946.
 * Ideally you would specify the source you consulted to determine the colors and other information in the image (such as the shape) but the means of creation is not necessary to specify. For example, this map cites a source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The photos used in the article are from Czechoslovakia and Romania, with one being from the Soviet Union. For the Czechoslovak ones, this license should do it, since they were all taken on territory of what is now Czechia. I see that the photos used on LT vz. 34, which is a Good Article, also use a similar license. The Romanian license I've linked above should also work—there are photos on Commons using it that have been uploaded 10 years ago, such as this one. From what I understand, what matters about that license is that "non-artistic photographs were not expressly protected by copyright", with the "issuance" part you referred to only counting for photos meant to be "artistic" (works of art?). For Soviet photos, the license used here should work.
 * Thanks for the explanation on the source thing. I will make the changes tomorrow. Best wishes, Lupishor (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The PD-RO-photo explains what happened to the copyright where it expired, but I don't see where it says that non-artistic photographs remained in the public domain after the 1996 law. The Czech template cannot be used unless you find a publication at least 70 years ago as stated on the template. For it to be PD-US all the conditions listed on the template need to be satisfied, including previous publication (before March 1989). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. So I've read through the full Romanian license. "Since issuance" is given as de la apariție, meaning "since it appeared/since creation". It doesn't specify they are referring to publication, so I think the license is safe to use. As I said, there are many photos using it on Commons that have been around for 10 years. I don't think it would have been the case had the license not been adequate. This license can also be used.
 * For Czechoslovak photos, the EU license should also work. The photos were first published in the 1930s, since they had to be shown to the Romanian side who was interested in acquiring that vehicle. What confirms this is that I've found at least one of them in Romanian works, which are based on Romanian archive material, indicating they had been made public to the Romanians back then, despite having been taken in Czechoslovakia.
 * I am going to modify the licenses right now. Best wishes, Lupishor (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot assume that the photographs were published in the 1930s. Publication requires that these particular photographs have been distributed to the public, so anyone could obtain them, while military technology is often not fully disclosed to the public. There's a ton of copyvio on Commons and the deletion process is broken, so you cannot assume that if the photograph is not deleted it must be OK. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All I can hope for then is that the Romanian photos are still ok, given what I said above about the license, so the image review can at least get an "only partially passed". About some of the photos taken in Czechoslovakia, it is possible they were taken by Romanian military commissions. However, I'm not sure if this makes the Romanian license applicable to them. Lupishor (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If a Romanian person or entity was the original copyright holder, then I think the source country would be Romania. However, it's not sufficient to be public domain in the source country, it also has to be public domain in the US for use on Wikimedia. I think it may be more productive to revisit the licensing issue after you get some supports based on the content of the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note
This has been open for nearly 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) 21:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is regrettable that this has not attracted more attention, but I am afraid that it has timed out. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

 * As a general rule, I'd discard all Cold War-era technical sources as tainted by incomplete documentation and political agendas. So no Chamberlain & Ellis, Kliment and Doyle, etc.
 * Kliment & Francev needs its title translated and I'd be curious to know if it had any relationship with an apparent 1997 English translation. But that bit's not really a concern for this review.
 * Volonchuk needs an OCLC number.
 * What makes articles on warspot.ru reliable?
 * Be sure to tell the reader what each non-English language source is written in.
 * Zaloga, Kliment, Spielberger and Axworthy are known to me as highly reliable sources on Romanian/Czech armor. No way for me to evaluate the foreign-language sources.
 * No formatting issues for the citations.
 * No spot-checks made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)