Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Illustrious (87)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

HMS Illustrious (87)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Illustrious was the first British armoured carrier and served throughout WWII. Her aircraft sank one Italian battleship and damaged two others at Taranto in 1940 before she was badly damaged by German dive bombers in early 1941. She saw service against the Vichy French and Japanese later in the war before the accumulated effects of battle damage forced her to return home in mid-1945. After the war she served as the Home Fleet's trials and training carrier for most of her subsequent career before being [s]crapped in 1956. As always I'm interested in cleaning up my prose, catching any lingering AmEnglish spellings and any unexplained jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason I had to manually add the subpage links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment As a quick comment, the Australian War Memorial has a PD image of what appears to be of the 6 April 1945 attack on the ship available here: it's not a wonderful quality image, but it's very dramatic Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick, an interesting image, especially when contrasted with the ineffectual damage inflicted by the kamikaze.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * In the modifications section: "After her return to the UK, her Type 79Z radar..." - when was this? It's best not to make the reader jump around in the article to get an idea of chronology.
 * "...as a result of the Washington Naval Treaty. As a result..." - I'd change one of those.
 * Might it be worth noting that Lyster had been involved in planning the Taranto raid as early as 1935?
 * It would be good to split off most of the Taranto section into its own section, since only the first 3 paras relate to the Taranto raid
 * The first para in that section and the one on the 9 Jan. attack are both rather long and might merit splitting.
 * I'd link Andaman Islands on first use.
 * What was the supposed target of Operation Governor?
 * "Once out of range of German aircraft, Illustrious arrived back at Greenock on 8 August" - this doesn't quite make sense as currently written - Illustrious left the Queen Mary group once they were out of range, she didn't arrive in Greenock once they were out of range (or else she'd never have left the port!)
 * "Four of these then flew ashore to conduct operations until they rejoined the ship on 14 September at Malta. - two things: first, I'm not sure this is really all that relevant to this article, and second, I assume the ship the line is referring to is Unicorn, not Illustrious? If the latter, then it's obviously relevant. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that I've dealt with all of these, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good to me now, though the photo of the Corsair crash-landing might need to be moved since it's sandwiching text now. Parsecboy (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've fixed this in both of my computers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
 * just a few comments though. She flew off her aircraft to Gibraltar on 31 January and arrived in the Clyde five days later.  I'm sure there is a logical explanation of this.  Does this mean her aircraft flew away (to somewhere else?) and that she arrived minus aircraft five days later?  I'm really not sure.  auntieruth (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what it means. I've tweaked the wording, see if it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
 * I would like to see one addition, the attack of I./StG 1 was led by Paul-Werner Hozzel. Maybe worth noting MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll add it if you can provide a cite. None of my sources mention his name in conjunction with the attack.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can find you a number of German sources, if you want. Online see google books—Hitler's Stuka Squadrons: The JU 87 at War 1936-1945 or google books—The Great Ships and google books—Dive Bomber!: Aircraft, Technology, and Tactics in World War II MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Image review/Oppose on image licensing concerns (as at 23:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)) Comments As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Judging from the first few sections, the prose looks good enough to head to FAC. I got down to Wartime modifications. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the jet landing image licensing isn't right. Most if not all of the others look ok, but I'd appreciate having a look before promotion to A-class. Nikki? Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 10:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Corsair_taking_off_from_HMS_Illustrious_WWII_Flickr_3482486518.jpg: not sure we can assume Royal Navy - it's from the collection of a journalist/researcher and the Flickr page says it's copyrighted. Do you have any other information supporting the Royal Navy designation?
 * I've queried the University of Newcastle about their Flickr license and also to try and get a bit more info about the guy from whom the photo was acquired.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, so to be clear, the consensus appears to be that this image is currently not ok. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the consensus needs more information to decide if the image is legitimately not OK for use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Jetlanding.jpg: agree with Peacemaker, the uploader very likely does not have the right to release this. What is the original source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I cannot find the original on the web nor in my reference books on the Supermarine Attacker. I've found other photos, of much better quality, that look to have been taken on the same day, but from a different vantage point and I'd be astonished if there was more than one official photographer aboard that day. Given its poor quality, I can believe that the photo was taken by the uploader during his National Service and that it's been sitting in a shoebox or something for the last 60 years. Unfortunately, the uploader's account is dead and cannot be queried for more information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, again, the consensus appears to be that this image is not currently ok (given the information in the current licensing). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. I believe that the uploader does that the rights to the photo and do not understand why y'all think otherwise given that I cannot find any other use of the photo and the uploader claimed that it was his own work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's your prerogative of course, Sturm, and I deeply respect your view and experience. But surely we err on the side of caution with copyright and image licensing issues? I'd be interested in more opinions on the licensing of both these images before the article is promoted, and I note that the other reviewers have been silent on the image licensing. In all other respects, it appears the consensus is for promotion. However, given the concerns expressed by myself and Nikki, I believe we should wait for more definitive information on the origin and status of both images before taking that step. I'm reluctantly opposing the promotion of this article until these issues are resolved, or the images are removed. I think that the reviewers that have supported promotion should express an opinion on the image licensing issues raised, by which a consensus on it might be established. Regards, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 23:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday I'm no expert on images (and such topics generally anger me to the point of irrationality) but my two cents FWIW:
 * File:Jetlanding.jpg: I see no evidence to suggest the uploader DID NOT hold the right to release the image. Indeed their limited contribution history (i.e. the similar type / subject and quality and look of images) uploaded suggests that they may well have been a National Serviceman and have served on the ship at that time. I couldn't find an alternative source via a Google image search to prove otherwise either. As such I would say we should assume good faith and use it.
 * File:Corsair_taking_off_from_HMS_Illustrious_WWII_Flickr_3482486518.jpg: I see no evidence that this is taken by the Royal Navy, only an assumption. Indeed the evidence available says it is copyrighted. As such I don't think it can be used as a free image unless some contrary information becomes available. I tried to find more info on the Percy Haslam collection but couldn't see anything which specifically lists the source of this image (was he serving in the Royal Navy at the time?). That said if it is the only image available to illustrate that aspect of the topic perhaps a fair use rationale could be used? Anotherclown (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I agree with your assessment on the Attacker photo and I'll pull the Corsair photo if the University doesn't respond to my query within a week or so as the Flickr license may not be sufficient. It's not unique enough for a fair use license. But I must say that, as a non-copyright expert, I assumed that the bot or human transferring these from Flickr would be checking to see if the license there was appropriate for use on Commons before copying it over. As a general question, I've always thought that the WMF was a non-profit organization and qualified as a non-commercial user, but it appears from some tentative poking around that images licensed only for non-commercial use cannot be uploaded. Can somebody explain or point me towards an explanation of why this is so?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable approach to me. Yes it can be a frustrating situation and I agree the bot or human transferring from Flickr has probably missed the mark here. Not sure of the actual reason for Wikipedia not qualifying as a "non-commercial user" but I suspect it is probably due to some  self-imposed and well-meaning, but ultimately self-defeating, philosophical objection to using non-free images (most of the evil in the world seems to be caused by idealists after all). Anotherclown (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a non-commercial user; however, our general license is CC BY-SA, which means that commercial users are permitted to re-use our content. Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Noncommercial_images and Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-02-12/Media_licensing have some more details. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on image licensing and the right to use them and I don't understand the possible ramifications for Wikipedia. The review here has done its job in pointing out possible concerns regarding these image. In my opinion the issue should be delegated to the experts. I ask myself, if there truly is an issue with the licensing of these pictures, under what circumstances can these images be used? If none exist, then the images might as well get deleted. On the other hand, if it doesn't get deleted, I see no better usage of these images than this article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Now supporting on prose per standard disclaimer. I finished copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I made a few minor changes but otherwise it looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: in the infobox there is the battle honour "Mediterranean 1904–1942". Is this correct? Or should it be "Mediterranean 1940–1942"? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good eyes!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 