Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:30, 16 June 2009 [1].

---

Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay

Nominator(s): Cool3 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay/archive1

I present Hastings Ismay for your consideration. Already a MILHIST A-Class article, I've given the article several style passes since that time and let it age for a while to allow others to improve it as well. I have heard some complaints about the lead image in the article, but frankly it's the best I've been able to do after considerable searching. If, however, anyone comes up with a better one, I would be very happy to include it. Happy Reviewing! Cool3 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note the link checker tool shows one dead link but it's working as I checked it.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comments - Just did a first review - generally looking good. I did notice some sentences and statements without citations - perhaps these are supported by a nearby citation, but for FA purposes would wonder if each statement/sentence would need to be locked down with a source? References list shows 78 of the 178 entries are "Ismay" - perhaps some secondary citations should accompany some of these cases to provide a better balance between primary/secondary sources. Seems consistent with WP:NATOSTYLE. Did some consistency checking to ensure UK English spellings, but could use a more detailed scan for that. Dl2000 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  Any sentence not cited is covered by the next citation; in my experience this is generally considered sufficient. Sure, many of the sources are Ismay's memoirs, but those provide more detail and depth than any other source available, so they were quite useful in filling the details. I think you'll find though, that other than in the early life (for which few secondary sources are avaialable), Ismay's memoirs are used primarily to express his own opinions (on which they are certainly authoritative) or to fill in details that other sources would omit. Some of these citations could be changed to Wingate, but I don't really see the point in doing so as Ismay's memoirs were one of Wingate's principal sources to begin with. Cool3 (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  I have now gone through the article quite thoroughly, supplementing the citations to Ismay's memoirs with a citation to a secondary, so that the majority of them (other than quotes) are now sourced to a secondary source. It would be possible, if reviewers feel it is necessary, to remove the Ismay citations and replace them with the new citations, but I tend to think that two citations are better than one. Cool3 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  Good stuff... to be clear, I don't suggest removing any Ismay refs; just a good balance of secondary sources to be safe, especially getting into the FA leagues. Concur that the more citations, the merrier, within reason. Dl2000 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments, near support, from Ceranthor (talk · contribs)
  • primarily remembered for his role - switch primarily and remembered

    Changed.

  • The Memoirs of General Lord Ismay - is this a collection or just one memoir, if the latter, refer to it as a memoir in the article

    So far as I know, when used to mean "autobiography", the memoir is generally used in the plural (memoirs). As Ismay himself entitled them "memoirs" it seemed most appropriate to carry forward this usage. "Usually, memoirs. a. an account of one's personal life and experiences; autobiography." [2]

  • After completing the course at Sandhurst, Ismay placed fourth on its examinations and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Indian Army. - fourth overall, I assume? Or fourth level, perhaps?

    Fourth overall, article changed to reflect this more clearly. Cool3 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, I think this is easily an FA article. ceranthor 15:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - seems quite solid and a worthy FA candidate. Dl2000 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. I did some minor copyediting, as some of the prose seemed a bit repetitive, but I think overall this is an excellent article. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on image concerns:

• File:FORT TALEH.jpg: there is no verifiable information for what the copyright of this image was claimed to be.

  Removed pending the conclusion of the IfD proccess.Cool3 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Gandhi with Lord and Lady Mountbatten.jpg: no proof of this image's first publishing in India; hence failing the PD-India claim. Conversely, there is evidence that suggests this to be under UK copyrights and hence still under copyright protection.

  Removed pending the conclusion of the IfD proccess, and replaced with a verifiably PD image of Mountbatten and Jinnah.Cool3 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Mountbatten Jinnah.jpg: unfotunately this runs into another problem. This image lapses into UK public domain only from 1998 (1947 + 50 + 1). There is an international treaty, the URAA, which restores/extends copyrights for foreign works that are not in their source country's public domain by 1 January 1996. As this image is still copyrighted in UK in 1996, and is under Crown Copyrights, the photo is copyrighted in US until at least 2019 or later. Jappalang (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Wow, that's complicated. You evidently know quite a bit more about copyright issues than I do, but I'm not quite sure this is true. Per the HMSO reply, it appears that HMSO may (as you state) still have copyright protection in the United States for its work published between 1946 and 1957, but it appears that they have relinquished that right. According to the email, "material published in 1954, and any Crown copyright material published before that date, would now be out of copyright, and may be freely reproduced throughout the world." This would seem to apply to the image in question. Cool3 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  The HMSO reply was only the first of the thread, and further posts raise certain issues (for one, if the letter is accepted as is, proof of publishing before 1954 has to be supplied for this image). I have brought up a discussion at commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Foreign government works and URAA as Carl Lindberg has raised an intriguing opinion of government works and URAA. Jappalang (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  The general consensus at commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Foreign government works and URAA seems to be that this photograph is in the public domain. Cool3 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yep, sure is. It is okay to upload expired British Crown Copyrighted material. Jappalang (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Maurice Hankey.jpg: I would like to hear what exactly qualifies this image to be in public domain; LoC's page states it is created or published in 1921. The current license is based on publishing before 1923.

  Isn't 1921 before 1923? Cool3 (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  The issue is where does it state the image was published before 1923; LoC's parameter is created or published, not just published. The PD-1923 is for year of publishing, not year of creation. If this photo was created on 1921 but unpublished before 1923 (and such things do happen), then the PD-1923 tag is false. Jappalang (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  I see what you mean. If necessary, the image can be removed. Cool3 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  After some searching, it appears that all images of the National Photo Company are considered to be in the public domain. I have added the appropriate tag to the file on Commons. Cool3 (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  I do not have such faith in the reasoning of the template, but it seems concensus on Commons favors the template. Jappalang (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Images are verifiably in public domain or licensed. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support and comments just two minor point War Book has half a set of quotation marks, two or none please. where he joined in the British fight against the "Mad Mullah", Mohammed Abdullah Hassan. would something like where he joined in the fight against Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, called the "Mad Mullah" by the British be less pov? I don't imagine his followers called him the Mad Mullah. Not a big deal if you are happy with current phrasing. jimfbleak (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • War Book is actually part of a larger quotation: "was responsible for seeing that all plans and preparations made by Government Departments or sub-committees of the CID to meet the eventuality of war, were incorporated under appropriate headings in a document known as the War Book." Thus, it's not actually in quotes of its own at all.
  • THe part on the Mad Mullah has been rephrased. Thanks for the comments! Cool3 (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support and comments: Generally excellent.

• "...to take control of the forces in Somaliland and finish off Hassan once and for all". The expression "...finish off Hassan once and for all" is not a quote, and is surely unencyclopedic. It makes him sound like a wounded dog. I suggest "...fight a conclusive battle against Hassan's forces".

  Good point. I've changed the wording. Cool3 (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything else looked OK to me; I did a couple of minor copyedits. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Attention is needed throughout to logical punctuation, WP:PUNC. One section uses the phrase "because of his" three times within a few sentences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Two of the three have been changed. Cool3 (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • All quotes have been adjusted to comply with this policy on punctuation. Cool3 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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