Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandera Prison/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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 May 2023 [1].

Mandera Prison

Nominator(s): Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the largest prison in the self-proclaimed nation of Somaliland. In its lifetime, the facility has held a decent amount of notable prisoners, and had two major prison breaks during the Somaliland War of Independence in the 1980s, which together freed upwards of 1,000 inmates who likely would have been executed otherwise. Aside from being my first FAC, the promotion of the article to FA status would mark the very first Somaliland-related article to ever reach such an achievement, so any and all feedback is welcome! Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

Hi Johnson524, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: No problem with me, thanks for reaching out! Johnson524 (Talk!) 21:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Hi Johnson524, welcome to FAC. Some issues with images:

Images shouldn't use a fixed pixel size, per MOS:UPRIGHT

File:Freed_prisoners_from_Mandheera_prison_by_the_SNM_(1983).png: in order to be hosted on Commons, images must be free in both the US and also their country of origin. This image is lacking a tag indicating why it is free in its country of origin. The same is true of File:Abdirahman_Mohamed_Abdullahi_(cropped).jpg (which also has a dead source link) and File:10_June_2022_protests_in_Hargeisa,_Somaliland.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nikkimaria, I'm sure you are already familiar with this, but I was under the impression that works published by citizens of countries without an active copyright law are likewise not subject to copyright protection outside of the country, putting such works in the public domain in most countries worldwide. With Somalia and Somaliland both not having any current copyright law: all three images, which were taken in or by these nations, should be in the public domain, right? If not, what more specifically can I do to fix this. Johnson524 (Talk!) 04:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your impression is correct, but the issue is the works' status inside their country - if you look at the bottom of the tag set used for the images, you'll see a note about how Commons policy requires a tag for status in country of origin in addition. You basically have two options. There looks to be a good analysis of the copyrighted situation here - you could review that to see if these works met the requirements to receive copyright protection in Somalia/Somaliland, and if you can confirm they did not they can be designated as public domain on that basis. Alternatively, you can upload these works locally - English Wikipedia only requires that images are free in the US, so issues around country of origin can be largely disregarded for local uploads. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Ok, after looking through the current Somaliland Copyright Law, there is no specific mention to "photographs" or "photography" as a protected work in the nation. Furthermore, under the fair use section, it says that "copyright laws usually permit reasonable fair dealing (or fair use) of copyright works for [...] study and education, research, review and reporting of current events without the permission of the copyright owner," which aligns pretty well with what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. With this clarified, do I need to add anything on the Commons photos themselves, or does it just mean that the image review is ok now? Thank you for your help 🙂 Johnson524 (Talk!) 04:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use rationales are not accepted on Commons, so if that's the basis on which you believe these are okay in their source country, they cannot remain Commons-hosted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to go the fair use route, wouldn't this template work? If there is any question about copyright in Somaliland itself, you could simply upload directly to enwiki which only requires that the works are free of copyright in the US. (t · c) buidhe 21:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe @Nikkimaria: I have no problem with uploading these images to enwiki under fair use, but I still don't think it appears to be necessary. The PD-Somaliland template explains that "there is no longer anywhere in Somaliland to register copyrights," and there really has not been since Somaliland separated from its union with Somalia. In my reply above, I mentioned that there is no mention of photographs as a protected work in Somaliland even under their defunct copyright laws, and that even if this was implied somewhere that photographs are subject to copyright (which I couldn't find) the images could still at very least still be used on Wikipedia under fair use. This still is not necessary though, as Somaliland has no active places to register copyrights. I should have made this clearer in my response above, so I apologize, but this is why I think all three images can still be used on Commons. If there is anything I have gotten wrong, I am more than willing to put these on enwiki under fair use, but I wanted to try to keep them on Commons if at all possible. Thank you both again for your help with this 🙂 Johnson524 (Talk!) 00:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the "works protected" section of the 1977 law is vague enough to encompass photography, but I don't have a good sense of how the lack of registration venue plays in - I'm not a lawyer, and there is a dearth of case law to clarify that. There might not be a clear sign off on the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility note

Just a note that the table needs some work done to meet MOS:ACCESS. MOS:DTT gives a good summary; the key elements are row and column scopes and a table caption. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Done! Johnson524 (Talk!) 19:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

This has been open for more than three weeks and just has not yet picked up a general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, I feel the main issues discussed so far have been addressed, is there anything I can do to prevent this? Johnson524 (Talk!) 17:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like many FAC nominations, this one would benefit from more reviews. Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately. They tend to be more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). so the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process too.

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, thank you for the reply 🙂 If you don't mind me asking, what does it take to be an FAC reviewer? Could I do it, or do you need to have completed your own FAC first? Johnson524 (Talk!) 19:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no requirements. Anyone can review a FAC, even an IP, and is encouraged to. Reviewing prior to submitting a FAC nomination is not mandatory, but is a good way of learning what goes into a successful, and unsuccessful, FAC and how the process works. And, as suggested above, regulars who have seen your name around in thoughtful reviews are then more inclined to use their scarce time reviewing your nom as opposed to anyone else's. Personally I did more than 40 FAC reviews before nominating my first FAC, but that is probably unusual. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I'll be sure to do some reviews then! Not necessarily for my own FAC at this point, but to help other editors find success in theirs, which has always been something I've wanted to do, but was under the assumption you needed prior FAC success. Thank you again ~ Johnson524 (Talk!) 19:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Good. Thank you. FAC is always short of reviewers. Just skim the list looking for an article you feel comfortable with and start right in. Shout if you have queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but four weeks after nomination this is showing no signs of a consensus to promote forming and so I am regretfully archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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