Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Param Vir Chakra recipients

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 Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of Param Vir Chakra recipients

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. I constructed the prose and list closely observing the structure and style of List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army, which a featured-list. I cited each and every sentence and gave clarifications wherever needed. Further suggestions for taking the list of A-class status and subsequently to FL status are welcome. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: sorry, lists aren't my strong suite, but a couple of things stand out to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the page ranges should have endashes instead of hyphens;
the page ranges should have "pp." instead of "p." (which denotes a single page)
watch out for capitalization per MOS:ALLCAPS
per WP:LAYOUT there is no need for the "External links" section when there is only the box link to Commons (it should just go in the last section - in this case the Further reading section)
dates should be consistent in style, e.g. compare "2010-08-08" with "4 September 2016"
"The Hindu" appears to be a newspaper source so it should probably be displayed in italics
some of the grammar could be tightened, for instance: "...provision for the award to be awarded for the second time, no one has been awarded twice yet..." (try to reduce the use of the word "award" here)

@AustralianRupert: Done. I have fixed the issues mentioned so far. Please have a look. Thanks for the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, your changes look good. I noticed a couple more things when copy editing, which I will list below. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Civil awards and decorations of India": is this category appropriate as the award seems to be a military one?
Do the Topyaps and Factly sites qualify as WP:RS? If not, I suggest replacing them with other refs.
Should the article be titled "List of Param Vir Chakra recipients"?

@AustralianRupert: I corrected the categories. As per the sources, both of the qualify WP:RS, because the information published is verified and backed by data from official sources, before they are put on web, so they are reliable. You can confirm the same here, here, and here. And as for the title, I tried moving as the standard naming style of lists, but title you've suggested List of Param Vir Chakra recipients is already a redirect, since I am not an admin or page mover I was unable to do so. As you are an admin, please do so. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've moved the list now and have added my support as all my comments have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~. I just want to add a comment so you'll know what's going on here ... I don't keep up with the Featured List process as much as the FAC process, so I'm not really comfortable copyediting lists at A-class. I did one list for you earlier because you were new to A-class and I wanted to help. Best of luck with this; we have plenty of people at Milhist who know what's expected for lists ... but whether they are keeping an eye on A-class is another question. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Please tell me your concerns regarding the list. Is there any copy-editing need to be done? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of cites in the lead; that wouldn't be okay at FAC, but it might be okay at FL, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: This case is a bit different. Lad contains some points about the award and its incentives, so they must cited. I have constructed this list in accordance with the FL, List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army. So we can take that citations in the lead are accepted at FLC. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: What is your opinion, support or is it just your opinion? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion, because I'm not familiar with the standards for lists. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support Having a couple of FLs to my name, this looks to be in pretty good shape. Normally, I wouldn't expect to see citations in the lead, so I would restrict the lead to an overview of the list, and create a new section for the "conditions of award", entitlements etc that needs citing. For example, all the citations in the first para are not needed, as it just summarises the information cited in the table. I would also add to the lead that two of the awards were to members involved in peacekeeping operations. A couple of additional points. I'm not sure about the licensing of the photographs used. I can't see anywhere on the source link that says the photos can be used, you should explicitly link to the page on the Indian Army website where this is stated (in the information field for each image file). Nikkimaria may have a different view on this. Secondly, it makes sense to have citations in numerical order, for example, most of them are in the form [10][3][11] rather than [3][10][11]. The latter point isn't a war-stopper, but the image licensing is. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Please see the improvements so far. I have kept some of the references in the lead. Unlike the FA criteria, FL allows citations in the lead, especially in this kind of lists, for examples, see List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army and List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F). The Indian Army website allows reproduction of material, it can be seen here. Please let me know where it should added to images i.e. in which field. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the citations have to be re-instated for the latter paragraphs of the "lead", as they are not covered by the table. The permission field of each image is where I would link to the page you have identified. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Is this okay, File:Major Somnath Sharma.jpg? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion here, we don't have enough information to confirm that derivative works are permitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Can you explain what is a "derivative work" in the sense? (just want to know) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A derivative work is one that is based on or incorporates the image, but is not exactly the same as it. For example, if you included the image as part of a collage, that would be a derivative work. The problem is, even if our use here is a simple reproduction - the image is exactly the same as it originally appeared - we need the image to have a license that allows derivative works in order for it to be considered "free" for our purposes. The issue is spelled out in our image use policy: "If the place where you found the image does not declare a pre-existing free license, yet allows use of its content under terms commonly instituted by them, it must explicitly declare that commercial use and modification is permitted. If it does not so declare, you must assume that you may not use the image unless you obtain verification or permission from the copyright holder." That's basically what's happening here: the website that the images are from says we can copy them without permission, but it doesn't explicitly allow derivative works. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given what Nikki has said, I would encourage you to contact the Indian Army website to try to get their say-so that "commercial use and modification is permitted" for the PVC images (have a read of WP:DCP first so you know what to ask for). However, in the meantime, I think they will need to be removed from the list in order to meet our image licensing requirements. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67 and Nikkimaria: I started a contact with the Indian Army and Air Force yesterday, but it would take time to get a clear response (may be a month or two). For now I have removed the images, and will only add them back after there is a clear declaration and consensus of the license. Apart from this, is there anything to be done? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first citation (the number of posthumous awards) isn't needed, as it summarises the list. The last para needs a citation, and the word "carriers" should probably be "carries". That's it for me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Actually it is for the first sentence, corrected the position. As for the last para, it is a small summary of section 2, does it need citation? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think that having a section further down works. I think all relevant information should be included before the list, so would encourage you to move the bottom section above the list and dispense with the summary para. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

good work, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. I ping Nikkimaria for a look back on image(s). Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the medal, is the given licensing meant to apply to the medal, the photo of the medal, or both? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: It applies to the image of the medal, that is present on the Indian Navy website, for which OTRS confirmation is obtained. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what is the copyright status of the medal itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Per the Indian copyright act, works of the government after 60 years, the medal established in 1950, is free now. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that make it non-free in the US, as it became free in India after 1996? Suggest adding appropriate tagging to the image to explain why the medal is free in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Why is that needed? We're using the image of the medial, and which is licensed. And why specifically in the US? It applies everywhere, once it is free in the source country. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First question: in India as in the US, freedom of panorama does not apply to engravings. If you took a picture of a building, we would only need to worry about your copyright as the photographer; however, for engravings we must also consider the copyright of the creator of the medal.

Second question: the situation is a bit more complicated than that. Both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons use US law, whereby to be considered "public domain" the image must be public domain (PD) in the US. (Commons also requires that it be PD in the source country). Just because something is public domain in its country of origin does not mean it's automatically PD everywhere. If you look at WP:NUSC, it explains how to tell if something is PD in the US that was published somewhere else. This work (a) is from a country whose works are given protection by the US, (b) is copyrightable in the US, (c) was created after 1923, and (d) was not in the public domain in its source country on the date of restoration - in this case, 1996. So unless India has special regulations that copyright expiration applies worldwide, or unless there's some other reason why the medal would be free in the US, we have to assume it isn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: SO what would you suggest now? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest looking into the copyright status of the medal, first to verify that the expiration date you've proposed is accurate and then to see if there's any reason it would be free in the US. Failing that, see if there are alternate images that would be free - for example, is there an earlier design? Failing that, remove the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Please see the replaced images. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ by Dudley

The lead names two active PVC recipients and a photo 3 living ones. These should be of a specified date as they will become out of date.

Two mean that they are still serving the army, but the photo is of living recipients, one of them is retired from the service.

Yes I realise that. I was making the point that at some stage the details will become incorrect - for example if one of the two retires or one of the three dies in 2017. Adding "in 2016" or "as of 2016" would guard against this. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A publication by NCERT is listed in refeences, but it is not used.

Moved it to further reading section.

"In addition to these, different ministries under the Central Government have various incentives to the PVC winners." This read a bit awkardly. perhaps "Central grovernment ministries give additional benefits to PVC recipients."

Done.

I would have added a column for dates of birth and (where applicable) death, but I am not familiar with lists of this type and maybe it is not usual. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These columns are completely uncessary, especially in these type of lists i.e. lists of a award recipients. For example, see an FL, List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army.

@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the review, I have addressed your comments. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.