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 Karanacs 19:29, 14 April 2009 [1].

Nassau class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote and greatly expanded this article over the past month or so. It recently passed MILHIST ACR, and I feel it's at or close to FA. I appreciate any and all comments towards improving the article. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the gun calibers and the torpedo bulkhead to the infobox; there isn't a field for double bottom percentage/watertight compartments or anything like that, is there?
Nevermind, I added the figures to the "Notes" field in the infobox. I guess that's as good a place as any.
"Stiff" is how Gröner's German Warships: 1815–1945 describes them As a non-sailor, I don't know exactly what that means.
Yes, the "they" refers to the class, not the bilge keels. I'll fix that misplaced modifier.
Well, Posen was the 4th member of the Nassau class, so... :)
Thanks for your comments! Parsecboy (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks alright :)
Hmm. You could try asking FTC Gerry (talk · contribs) or BB35 Restorer (talk · contribs); I'm not sure if they would know, but it'd be your best bet. :/
Ok.
*facepalm*... Cheers Parsec! :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a line at FTC Gerry's talk page, maybe he can help us out with this. Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be a little more specific, please? I checked Iowa class battleship (the first ship class FA that comes to mind) and it has the basically just the same categories that this one does. Do you mean something like, say, Category:Ship classes that entered service in 1909/Category:Ship classes that were removed from service in 1920? Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, although I was thinking in terms of individuals ships, not classes (likely, both types of categories are needed). Interesting. This indicates to me a greater failing among ship articles category system (Category:Ships) in general - they should be categorized with the naval equivalents of year of establishment/disestablishment (Category:Establishments by year). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll bring that up at WP:SHIPS and see how the project wants to set up that category system. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion at WT:SHIPS that looks like we're going to create a category tree along the lines of Category:20th century ships --> Category:1900s ships --> Category:1901 ships. Once this is implemented, they'll be added to the article. Parsecboy :  Chat  15:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear that! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I haven't yet found anything about electronic equipment/rangefinders/etc, although I'm sure they mounted at least some time of optical rangefinder. Gröner's German Warships: 1815–1945 is the best technical reference I've yet come across, but it doesn't mention anything about the issue. Neither does Conway's, but I wouldn't expect it to, really. I'll keep digging (I'm away from home, and only brought a couple of books with me) and see what I can turn up. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to follow up, I haven't been able to find anything about electronic equipment/rangefinders/etc. in any of my books, or on Google books. Short of archival documents, it doesn't look like the information exists. Parsecboy (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please audit your use of "however"; in two places it appears twice in close succession. Use it only when necessary, and where contradiction is indicated. Consider using "although", "though", or "but" instead. Kablammo (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proofread the article for other repetitions. "All four ships" appears three times in the second paragraph of the introduction. Kablammo (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cut out most of the "however"s and fixed the "all four ships" repetition in the intro. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will add some substantive comments on design to article talk page. Kablammo (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've incorporated that information into the article, thanks for helping do some research! Parsecboy (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I left an inline comment in the lead, regarding a snaky sentence that isn't cohesive and needs to be split.
  2. I understand why you used bolding in the infobox, but I really dislike it—looks icky, and lends weight to the 'wrong' information. I think the real problem is too much information in the infobox. I understand (believe me) the compulsion to not 'lose' any pieces of data, but if the data is not even mentioned in the text (like the range at four speeds, the complement figures as flagship, etc), then it probably doesn't belong in a summary, right? Another item I wouldn't detail there is the boats: a simple '10' would suffice in the infobox.
  3. Using ((Commonscat-inline)) inside the ((refbegin)) tag makes the Commonscat link look like a reference. Why not use the ((Commonscat)) box?
Maralia (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I fixed the line in the intro you pointed out, and cleaned up the infobox a bit. I had tried the bolding as a sort of experiment, and I wasn't really sure how I felt about it. I think it's better without. I changed the Commons link to the standard one; I'm not really sure where that came from, but I usually don't mess with those. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (Part 2) Oppose based on criteron 3 File:SMS Westfalen LOC 25466u.jpg - We have to prove that this image is in the PD - "no known restrictions" is not sufficient. What reason do you have to believe that this is in the PD? Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that insufficient? It's in the George Bain collection, which is generally held to be PD, unless otherwise noted. Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Images must prove their public domain status - that is part of the policy, particularly at Commons, where this image is hosted - "no known restrictions" is not the same as being in the public domain. 2) The description of the Bain collection says "The bulk of the collection dates from the 1900s to the mid-1920s, but scattered images can be found as early as the 1860s and as late as the 1930s." - Anything published after 1923 would still fall under copyright and we would have to establish that the owner had been dead for over 70 years or some other method if we wanted to claim that it was in the PD. Thus, we need to know the details about this image. First and foremost, when was it published? Awadewit (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it isn't PD, per say...but...

2. The image is from a late 19th or early 20th century collection for which there is no evidence of any rights holder:

  • There are no copyright markings or other indications on the images to indicate that they were copyrighted or otherwise restricted, AND
  • The records of the U.S. Copyright Office do not indicate any copyright registration, AND
  • The acquisition paperwork for the collection does not contain any evidence of any restrictions, AND
  • Images from the collection have been used and published extensively without anyone stepping forward to claim rights.

These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain, but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions apply.

— LOC
Commons requirements are more stringent than the LOC's - Commons requires that images prove that they are in the PD. Awadewit (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that it would be harder to do a more in-depth look than the LOC would do. "No known restrictions" sounds like this passes the "acceptable copyright status" requirement of FA criterion #3. Also, why would Commons have a ((PD-Bain)) template if the images aren't allowed on there? I think that you might be going a bit overboard here...no offense... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The LOC doesn't necessarily do a lot of work. Moreover, I must reiterate that "no known restrictions" means nothing when it comes to copyright. It proves nothing. Finally, templates can be created by anyone on Commons - even incorrect and irrelevant templates can be created. This one does not prove that the image is in the public domain. My demands are not unreasonable - they are necessary. I am now adding an "oppose" to this comment. I have explained what needs to be done. At this point, either more information needs to be provided to demonstrate the image's PD status or the image needs to be removed. Awadewit (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up on Commons here; Carl Lindberg states that "No known restrictions" is LoC-speak for public domain (it just reflects the fact that copyright and other law is extremely complex and it is impossible to predict future court decisions which may unexpectedly create new rights). The Library of Congress purchased the Bain collection (and thus the copyrights) in 1948 and placed them in the public domain, so it does not matter when the photographs were made or if they were published...The LoC only is putting up the photos where they own the negative (i.e. proving that it was authored and owned by the Bain company) rather than any of their prints. The Westfalen is indeed one of the glass negatives, so it should be perfectly fine for use. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. If a photo is known to be in the PD, the LOC says so - "no known restrictions" is their way of getting around not knowing for sure whether or not something is in the PD. In their own definition of "no known restrictions", the LOC says "These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain, but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions apply." (emphasis added) Moreover, the LoC cannot "place" anything into the PD. Finally, if you read the entire rights statement on the LoC, you will see that they say it is up to users to determine whether or not it is acceptable to use an image or not - "In all cases, it is the researcher's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections." The LoC defers all copyright decisions. Awadewit (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will firmly stand by my statement ;-) The LoC never says "public domain" on any image description page I have ever seen; they always use the "no known restrictions" terminology. For example here (an item published in the 1600s), here (U.S. federal government photograph), or here (images which the author explicitly placed in the public domain as part of the gift). Other than international concerns, since they are guided by U.S. law only, the Library of Congress is probably more careful about copyright than almost anyone else (probably including Commons). It is just with looooooong experience, it is impossible to tell when something will come out of left field, like a descendent or ex-partner suddenly claiming rights when it was felt the original donor had owned them completely, or a court decision which changes the landscape, or other items like that. They use "public domain" on rights pages sometimes if they are clearly published before 1923 or the donor uses that wording; otherwise I barely ever see it. While the LoC does not own the copyright most of their works, they do obtain special collections from time to time, and individual collections can have terms from a donor, or can be purchased (along with copyright) outright. Prior to 1978 (when the 1976 Copyright Act came into effect), most case law indicated that unless a contract specified otherwise, copyright was transferred if negatives were sold. (Congress completely changed that; transfers since 1978 require a signed document in writing, so it is now possible to sell a negative but not the copyright). The LoC would most certainly have mentioned that in their collection documentation, but they obviously believe they acquired the copyright, which has probably lapsed anyways (the sale probably would have meant they were "published" in 1948 if they had not been already, so renewal was required in 1975/6) at the latest. Commons has a specific commons:Template:PD-Bain tag for this collection to indicate that they may be PD for reasons other than normal U.S. rules; images from there have always met Commons requirements. In fact, it is one of the two collections (the other being federal government works) the LoC is putting on Flickr commons; they are probably as sure about their copyright status as any other in their collection. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--The thing I don't understand, though, is that the Bain Collection was sold to the LoC; doesn't this mean that they therefore also sold the copyrights for the photographs they created themselves to the LoC? What I'm saying is, the Bain News Service created the photograph. They held the copyright until it was sold to the LoC. How is its use still restricted, if the LoC is not claiming any copyright? Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't believe the issue surrounding this image is taking up a third of the entire FAC nomination. Honestly, Awadewit, this is much ado about nothing. The LoC always uses the phrase "No known restrictions on publication", even for images which are proven to be in the public domain. For instance, photographs in the G. Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection are known to be in the public domain, yet the phrase "No known restrictions on publication" is still used on their description page. The same wording is used for photos of US presidents and first ladies, even though these are clearly PD due to the fact that they're works of the US government. It's just standard LoC vocabulary. You say that "the LOC doesn't necessarily do a lot of work." I don't want to make any personal attacks, but for someone who isn't even a lawyer to be so dismissive towards LoC is quite immodest. If there's anyone in the US who knows anything about copyright, it's clearly the Library of Congress, since the United States Copyright Office itself is a part of LoC. When professionals at LoC say that there are no known restrictions on publication, it means that even though they might not be 100% sure of PD status, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever come and sue you for using them. As for the assertion that "templates can be created by anyone on Commons - even incorrect and irrelevant templates can be created", it is true. However, you cannot say this about PD-Bain. This template has existed for over two years, it is protected (which indicates wide consensus for its continued existence) and is used by 1,758 images as of today. Not exactly what I would call an "incorrect and irrelevant template". I agree with you that "Commons requirements [may be] more stringent than the LOC". However, the "No known restrictions on publication" notice has always been widely accepted on Commons, and there are tens of thousands of images from LoC which are hosted on Commons based on this sole assertion by LoC. I don't know of a single instance where an image was deleted because the "No known restrictions on publication" notice was deemed an insufficient indication of copyright status. If you think this should be changed and that all of these images should be deleted because they fail to prove that they are PD, then you are perfectly allowed to make such a proposal on the Commons Village Pump, although I doubt it will get a single support vote. However, this FAC is clearly not the place for disputing Commons practices, and opposing this FAC solely for the inclusion of this image is disproportionate. I'm sorry for the somewhat harsh language, and this is in no way intended as a personal attack. However, I find it quite disheartening when people become so obsessive about what is really a non-issue. Best regards. --BomBom (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my oppose. I am not going to repeat myself. I have explained my reasons, which are entirely legitimate. (By the way, if you want to know why so few FA reviewers are willing to look at images, this exchange is a perfect example of the treatment that drives reviewers away.) Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit, my sincere apologies...we aren't meaning to hassle you...It's just that, in good faith, Parsec and I disagree and believe that the image can be used. Again, apologies, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I simply don't understand your objection. Bain News Service held the copyright; they sold it to the LoC. How is it still in copyright if the LoC is not claiming to hold a current copyright? Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They did not sell the copyright - the sold the photos themselves as well as some negatives. This does not mean copyright was transferred. You are mixing up owning the object itself with owning the copyright or intellectual property. Think of it this way, when a library owns a book or manuscript, that does not mean they own the copyright to that book or manuscript. Copyright is independent of ownership of the object itself. Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they didn't sell the copyright, then they didn't sell the photographs. They merely licensed them (for example, the reason one cannot freely copy and redistribute music; it wasn't sold in the legal sense, it was licensed for personal use). Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked two Commons admins to comment here. Hopefully they will. Awadewit (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I'd like to see an inline cite after each sentence that has a date or number. If that is fixed, I'll change to support. --mav (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, that's not necessary. Every line is sourced to the citation at the end of the paragraph. If portions of a paragraph are not sourced to the ending citation, there are the appropriate citations where they need to be. Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used to do that myself but did at least mention "for the whole paragraph" in the inline cite. But then, each para ideally should be sourced from more than publication and if it isn't now, somebody else will add a sentence in these para that is from another source, which will confuse things either way. I've had to add more inline cites during FARs of many early FAs I worked on that tried to get away with one inline cite per paragraph. It is just not sufficient, IMO. --mav (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, there really aren't that many English sources for this information (and my German isn't nearly good enough to look through German sources), so everything more or less has to come from the handful of sources that do exist. It just seems a little extreme to me to have 20-odd citations to "Gröner, p. 23" when 5 or so would do. Parsecboy (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed here. I've never had, and can't see, a problem with having one cite at the end of a paragraph if it is all from one source. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More