oppose All images licences are based on the statement "This image was created in Australia ...", wether they are from Turkey, Malaya, Japan or France doesn't sem to matter Fasach Nua (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Australian copyright is expired for photographs pre-1955 in Australia and for Government-created works pre-1959 (see Commons:Licensing#Australia), so if they were created in Australia prior to that 1955, or government-created (which these appear to be) pre 1959 that is a legitimate public-domain statement. – iridescent 00:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
All of the images used in this article were created and owned by the Australian Government. All of these photographs are in the public domain as Iridescent has kindly explained. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Interjecting here, although Fasach Nua is partially correct in assessing if the licenses are valid for the projects (a PD image in its own country might still not be enough), his oppose is invalid. Wikipedia and Commons require the image to be PD in US (Commons require it to be also PD in the country of source). The photos are considered PD in Australia based on a 2008 law, but there are questions to be answered of its status (PD) in the US. While still in their copyrighted period, have the photos been published and registered in US? Are the copyrights of the photos (if published or not published after 1978) extended or renewed on 1 January 1996 by the URAA agreement?
Raymond Brownell (as an Australian) is not mentioned in any books published after 1923 that are copyrighted in US. Hence, for all things considered, if his photos have been published in Australia, they have no copyrights in the US by 2002 and are considered to be public domain in the US as well.
For the URAA, the photos are public domain only if they are in Australian public domain before 1 January 1996. The 2008 law does not apply here; however, the law in 1996 gives the standard 50 years since creation for photographs. Therefore, Australian photos taken before 1946 are in local public domain on 1 January 1996. As none of the photos used in this article are taken after 1945, they are not affected by the renewal/extensions of the URAA.
Unless I missed something out, this article is using photos that are public domain in both US and Australia. Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment numbers such as 10 in the Notes section, the ones that if you click on are supposed to bring the page down to the correct reference, do not work. Sorry if I was unclear. Mm40 (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In cases where the cite has been used multiple times, you click on the letters rather than the arrow to go to the correct instance where the cite has been used. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm referring to refs like number 21 (a better example) where if I click on Odgers 1968,, it should bring me down to the correct book in the section entitled references. Do you see what I'm saying? Mm40 (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay, sorry. Cite 10 wasn't working as there was a typo in it, but they all work perfectly fine now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
All of them work okay except for 22 and 24 (Helson 2006). May it be a typo? Sorry for this nitpick, though :) Mm40 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No, thanks for the nitpick; it fixes problems. ;-) It was another editor who was kind enought to add the information from Helson, though when he added it to the "References" section he used Cite Paper which was causing the problems. I have now substituted it for Cite Book and they both work now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Support Excellent article which meets the FA criteria - great work. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Support Well-researched/-written/-illustrated. Passed this for GA and supported during ACR; no reason to divert from that path now. My only minor suggestion, for this and future articles, is to mix up the construction of sentences to avoid getting into a rut. For instance in the second para of the intro, every sentence began with a verb and introduced the subject mid-way though. That's great to do alternately to avoid a constant stream of subject-led sentences (He did this ... He did that ... He did the other ...) but you don't really want a full paragraph of it or it tends to get wearing. I changed a couple of things in that intro para to show what I mean; there may be other spots in the article although they didn't leap out at me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ian, both for the tweaks and advice. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Re. advice, no prob, I found myself doing it in my latest draft article too - as in so many things, balance is the key...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Support. It could probably do with a bit more about the subject in a non-military context, even if it means using his own autobiography – there's nothing about his family, politics, religious beliefs if any etc – but as a strictly military biography this seems flawless. – iridescent 16:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, mate. If I am ever able to get a hold of Brownell's autobiography (which is probably the only place where there would be additional info on his non-military life) then I will definitely add in any more info I am able to from it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.