Talk:Duncan-class battleship/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
This article is in good shape. Just a few pretty minor things:
- in the lead, there is a bit of repetition. " The foremost design consideration was a high top speed to match the rumoured (and incorrect) top speed of 19 knots (35 km/h; 22 mph) of the Russian ships while maintaining the same battery of 12-inch (300 mm) guns while keeping displacement from growing". Suggest rewording.
- Switched the second one for "and"
- did Duncan actually serve in the Adriatic itself or at the Otranto Barrage? Lead and body.
- Like the Italian main fleet, she was based at Taranto - I figured this was a bit too much detail for the article, and "the Adriatic" is a good shorthand for what the ship was tasked with doing.
- Strictly speaking, it was based in the Ionian Sea, but I guess it doesn't matter too much. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Like the Italian main fleet, she was based at Taranto - I figured this was a bit too much detail for the article, and "the Adriatic" is a good shorthand for what the ship was tasked with doing.
- in Design, the 12-inch guns are described as being 300 mm, but in the infobox they are 305 mm?
- Forgot to specify the convert template in the Design section, good catch
- for reserve stability, perhaps link secondary stability? I know it is a stub, but even so, some link or explanation is needed.
- Done
- should 6 inches of Krupp armour be six inches per MOS:NUMERAL?
- Probably so
- File:Peresvet1901.jpg needs a date of publication for the US-PD licence. The current US-PD licence also requires it to have been PD in Russia in 1996, but it wasn't until 2001.
- The explanation Sturm gave here was apparently sufficient for Nikki, so I'd think it's fine as is.
- I'd like to understand how that is the case, perhaps Nikkimaria can fill me in? As I see it, the PD-old-70 tag is based on the year of death of the photographer, Bar, who died in 1930. Therefore it wasn't PD until 2001 (1930+70+1). The third condition for a PD-1996 tag requires that the picture had to be PD in France on 1 January 1996, but it wasn't PD there until 2001, so it can't be PD-1996. There may be other tags that might work, based on Sturm's assumption about publication through sale, but they are not jumping right out at me. Nikki? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- The life+70 tag places copyright expiration in 2001 in Europe. However, there are a few complicating factors in this case as regards US status. Most significantly, Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#endnote_tab_france notes that at the time of the URAA, French copyright was life+50 rather than life+70. Given the lack of clarity around publication date and place it's uncertain which of the various extensions would have applied, but the balance of probability given Sturm's information as provided in the FAC cited would put expiration before URAA, and further would mean the terms of the URAA tag were met. That being said, I'd characterize the PD status of this image as likely but not 100% certain - it's open to interpretation whether that's good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Nikki. Then perhaps it needs a PD-because for France plus PD-1996, noting in the PD-because description that because the French copyright was life+50 then, it was PD in France in 1981, that then satisfies the third condition of the PD-1996 tag. It also needs something in the description that asserts what Sturm said in the earlier review about likely sale and therefore publication soon after it was taken, as there is nothing currently about publication for the first two conditions of the PD-1996 tag. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, I think I've got that sorted out - let me know if that works for you. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Nikki. Then perhaps it needs a PD-because for France plus PD-1996, noting in the PD-because description that because the French copyright was life+50 then, it was PD in France in 1981, that then satisfies the third condition of the PD-1996 tag. It also needs something in the description that asserts what Sturm said in the earlier review about likely sale and therefore publication soon after it was taken, as there is nothing currently about publication for the first two conditions of the PD-1996 tag. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- The life+70 tag places copyright expiration in 2001 in Europe. However, there are a few complicating factors in this case as regards US status. Most significantly, Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#endnote_tab_france notes that at the time of the URAA, French copyright was life+50 rather than life+70. Given the lack of clarity around publication date and place it's uncertain which of the various extensions would have applied, but the balance of probability given Sturm's information as provided in the FAC cited would put expiration before URAA, and further would mean the terms of the URAA tag were met. That being said, I'd characterize the PD status of this image as likely but not 100% certain - it's open to interpretation whether that's good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to understand how that is the case, perhaps Nikkimaria can fill me in? As I see it, the PD-old-70 tag is based on the year of death of the photographer, Bar, who died in 1930. Therefore it wasn't PD until 2001 (1930+70+1). The third condition for a PD-1996 tag requires that the picture had to be PD in France on 1 January 1996, but it wasn't PD there until 2001, so it can't be PD-1996. There may be other tags that might work, based on Sturm's assumption about publication through sale, but they are not jumping right out at me. Nikki? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- The explanation Sturm gave here was apparently sufficient for Nikki, so I'd think it's fine as is.
- File:Duncan class diagrams Brasseys 1915.jpg needs a US-PD tag.
- Done
- File:HMS Cornwallis launching 1901 Flickr 4313590700 84f85dd065 o.jpg needs a US-PD tag.
- Does it? I'd think if it's on Flickr's Commons we should be able to assume it's fine.
- I'm not so sanguine given Commons:Flickr files, but I'll take your word for it, not having had much to do with Flickr. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- My sense is, since it's from the National Maritime Museum, that moots the concerns raised there about changes to licensing on Flickr, given that they're the ones who hold the photo. Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not so sanguine given Commons:Flickr files, but I'll take your word for it, not having had much to do with Flickr. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Does it? I'd think if it's on Flickr's Commons we should be able to assume it's fine.
That's me done. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)