Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Brill/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:42, 30 May 2011.

William Brill

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This article focusses on a country boy who became a World War II bomber pilot, eventually commanding No. 467 Squadron RAAF. He managed to get out of all manner of scrapes in the air war over Europe, survive the conflict, and play a part in the post-war RAAF, but still died quite young. Recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews -- any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Why cite the RAAF sources using the volume number and the Herington using the volume name?
 * Heh, good point, what was I thinking?
 * Herington sources appear to be out of order
 * I was sorting alphabetically on title but with the volume name in there as well, it looks better reversed.
 * Compare formatting for notes 17 and 38
 * Thanks, that was a typo stuffing up the newspaper name.
 * Even if the original source gives the title in all-caps, we should still use normal capitalization. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had the opposite suggested to me as well in the past but I prefer normal caps myself so no prob with that. Thanks for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I didn't make it back to the A-class review because my laptop's buggered, but I looked at the article in some detail then and didn't see any issues. It's a high-quality, engaging article with an interesting story to tell and worthy of FA status. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, HJ -- glad to see you back on the air. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Images - File:SUK11562BrillPortrait1943.jpg: since this photo includes a painting, you also need to indicate the copyright/licensing status of that painting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this question arises. If you check the source file, it's marked as public domain by the Australian War Memorial, an Australian Government agency, so I don't know how that proclamation could be leaving out the painting. It's not my interpetation of Australian copyright, it's the Government (which would incidentally have owned copyright on painting and photo if copyright was still in force). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Our most experienced image reviewers are long departed, but we need another read on this. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to be the spanenr in the works, but I agree with Nikki. We need to know who owns the copyright for the painting and what its copyright status is. I'd be surprised if it was usable, because I think paitings don't enter the public domain until 70 years after the artist has died. Put simply, we have to treat it as two images, thus we need copyright information on the second (the painting). Sorry. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to support HJ Mitchell on this one. The picture isn't incidental to the photo (e.g. coincidentally in the background). Its not covered by right of panorama, as its a 2D, not 3D object. The Australian Government can release the copyright on their rights to the photo, but unfortunately that doesn't mean they can release the original artist's rights to the painting. If the Australian Government owned the rights to the painting as well, of course, that would be different - but we'd need to take into account the difference between owning the physical painting, and owning the rights to its reproduction (which can be separate). Hchc2009 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still curious as to why people are second-guessing the explicit declaration of copyright expiry by the govenment. Why would you assume that the Australian government did not own all rights to a painting sitting in the overseas headquarters of its air force? By the way, HJ, I think you'll find an Australian artistic work enters public domain if the author died before 1955, not 70 years after they died. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you could argue that UK law didn't apply in this circumstance, then you could perhaps fall back on Australian law, which is partially quite helpful. The relevant bit here in the Australian Copyright Council website notes that "The generally accepted interpretation of the relevant provision in the Copyright Act is that you may photograph a “sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship” which is publicly displayed “other than temporarily” without permission. There is, however, a technical argument that neither underlying works in such sculptures and craft works nor pre-existing design drawings are covered under that provision, and that permission is still required for the indirect reproduction of these works in a photograph of the sculpture or craft work. We are not aware of any cases in which this argument has been raised in court." UK law, if it covered the headquarters, would differentiate (unhelpfully in this case) between 2D and 3D artwork though.
 * On the issue of owning copyright and physical paintings, though, the Australian ACC notes the presumption that "You are not usually entitled to make copies of an artwork you have bought, unless copyright in that artwork has expired. A transfer of ownership of copyright must be in writing and signed by the copyright owner. In most cases, an artist who sells a piece of art keeps the copyright, and the purchaser needs the artist’s permission to reproduce the artwork." One could argue that the Australian War Memorial agency will have checked this paperwork themselves before releasing the photograph, but, speaking personally, I'd be very surprised if they had. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the photograph is in the public domain, but there's no statement that the painting's copyright is owned by the Australian Government. There's a statement that it was made by a third party, and that third party died after 1955 (1987 according to the AWM) so, much as I hate to say it, I think we have to assume that the painting is still in copyright. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bit of an anomoly that we accept the AWM as a reliable source as far as its text goes but not its declarations regarding image copyright... ;-) Still, I genuinely appreciate you guys responding to my request for further comment, and in the interests of wrapping this FAC up I'll just substitute a more conventional photo. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A certain delegate is appreciative :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Units
 * It mentions 'feet' and 'lb'. I recommend that conversions are provided to make it widely accessible. Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support:
 * I believe that the article is well written, well referenced, comprehensive, is neutral, stable and comprehensive. It is supported with appropriate images and is an appropriate length;
 * there are no dab links, ext links work and alt text is present;
 * the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations;
 * spot checks of the online sources didn't reveal any violations to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead is solid. from Cryptic C62, a bacon-flavored waffle manufacturer.
 * "a member of the Australian Militia" I find this linking format to be somewhat odd. How about "a member of the Australian Militia" instead?
 * "Following a spell as an instructor" This language is too informal. I suggest replacing "spell" with a word that is not "spell".
 * "Brill's leadership and determination to always press home his attacks despite damage to his aircraft—on one occasion inflicted by another Lancaster's bombs from above..." The purpose of the lead is to given an informative summary of subject, not to declare how amazing he is and why we should all go back in time to give him a high-five. I suggest dropping the intriguing but largely irrelevant anecdote and rewriting as follows: "Brill's leadership and ability to consistently finish his attacks despite damage to his aircraft".

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First two points no issue, will do. Re. the last one, I don't think I'm using langauage different in tone to what the sources employ, and this wording has stood GAR and ACR, but will think about how it might be modified without becoming too pedestrian -- FA writing is supposed to be engaging after all... Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Modified last-mentioned to replace "always press home his attacks" with "complete his missions" but "determination" seems more appropriate than "ability", and the sortie involving being hit by friendly fire was one of those for which the DSO was awarded so I think it's relevant as well as interesting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a happy clam! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the immortal words of Blackadder's firing squad, we aim to please...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

remarks needs legacy sectionrm2dance (talk)
 * Thanks, but what would you suggest for the new section's content? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree with Rm2dance, along with all the other reviewers who have responded to the same comment in other reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I reviewed this for GA status and found it to be a compelling read then. Since it's undergone an A-class review and FAC since then, I can only assume the article is in even better shape now. (As a caveat, I have not re-read the article since my GA passage.) Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.