Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gallipoli Campaign

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gallipoli Campaign

Nominator(s): Stingray Trainer (talk)

Submitting this article for A-Class review. It is an extremely comprehensive, well written and well researched article that covers a major campaign of the First World War. It is a high traffic article, being viewed more than 800,000 times in the last year and is likely the starting point for many thousands of peoples research. It has recently undergone a Peer Review process (Gallipoli Campaign) that made some good changes and is ready for further analysis. Hopefully one day it may be ready for FA nomination. Stingray Trainer (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I'll ask the question which doomed the recent FAC Stingray Trainer started for this article: do the editors who have worked on this article the most support the nomination, and are currently in a position to follow up on comments? I note that Stringray Trainer has never edited the article, nor started a discussion of these nominations on the article's talk page so this may also be out of process. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I'm sorry, but I am not really keen to work on an ACR at this time. Not sure if AC or Keith are interested, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interest in the article Stingray Trainer. For what its worth I am willing to assist with this review where I can but won't be able to make any guarantees due to other demands on my time and enthusiasm. Anotherclown (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up all maps
File:G.C._18_March_1915_Gallipoli_Campaign_Article.jpg should include tags for all included images, particularly those that are not independently on Commons
File:Landing_French-Gallipoli.jpg: when/where was this first published?
File:Cape_Helles_landing_map.jpg: what is the source of the data in this image?
File:AE2_(AWM_H17538).jpg: that URAA tag requires a publication date. Same with File:Lone_Pine_(AWM_A02025).jpg
File:OttomanBatteryAtGallipoli.jpg: if this was created by a news service, why is it a government work?
File:French_75_gun_at_Cape_Helles_1915.jpg: where was this first published and what was the author's date of death?
File:Gallipoli_Battlefield_(15399670914).jpg: what is the copyright status of the statue itself? Same with File:Gallipoligrave.jpg, File:Çanakkale_Martyrs_Memorial_-_panoramio.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking over these, I've made changes where I can but most I cannot address as I didn't upload them and don't know much about their provenance save what is currently available in commons. In regards to each of the concerns though:
  - File:G.C._18_March_1915_Gallipoli_Campaign_Article.jpg should include tags for all included images, particularly those that are not independently on Commons
    - I've included tags where I know them but not all have been addressed. Anyone else with any clues about these?
      - @Anotherclown: G'day, AC, thanks for this. At this stage, I'm not quite sure which ones are left to find tags for. As such, I wonder if the tags would be clearer if the individual licences were included under individual headers for each file (say for instance a level 3 header under the level 2 license header). That would make it easier to determine which images have licences, and which do not. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair point, I've clarified this now. The only one I haven't been able to add is the Turnbull Library image. Anotherclown (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, AC, that's a difficult one. As far as I can tell the author is Lawrence Campbell Mackie who apparently died in 1978[1]. If that is the case, I don't think PD-New Zealand applies as it hasn't been 50 years since his passing, unless Crown copyright applies. [2]. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes I think you are probably right about this one. Indeed the NZ National Library lists it as "Copyright: Unknown" [3] so I'd say this will need to be removed. Given its part of a collage someone else made I think we might need to swap the whole thing out. Does anyone have any thoughts on a suitable replacement? We will probably need to get local consensus at the article for a change like this though I'd say. Anotherclown (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I reckon we could just replace the offending image in the collage with an appropriately licensed image. I was thinking this potentially: File:V Beach Helles Gallipoli.jpg. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Seems like a good replacement to me. Anotherclown (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - File:Landing_French-Gallipoli.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    - I don't have this information unfortunately. I checked the source but it was not listed.
      - @Anotherclown and Keith-264: We probably need to replace this image given the above comment, are there any other images of French troops that might be used? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nikkimaria: According to the AWM, the image was created by Ernest Brooks, who appears to have been the official Admiralty photographer during the Gallipoli campaign. Would this make it a Crown Copyright image? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that is a fair assessment. Anotherclown (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yep, seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - File:Cape_Helles_landing_map.jpg: what is the source of the data in this image?
    - Unsure. I would only be guessing unfortunately as I didn't draft it.
      - It appears to have been drafted using the map in General Ian Hamilton's Gallipoli Diary Volume 1 (1920). I've added this information now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - File:AE2_(AWM_H17538).jpg: that URAA tag requires a publication date. Same with File:Lone_Pine_(AWM_A02025).jpg
    - I'm not sure URAA is even relevant, both are asserted to be Crown Copyright which has recently been confirmed to apply worldwide. At any rate I don't have the information requested and it doesn't appear at the source either that I can see.
      - In that case I'd suggest simply removing the URAA tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - File:OttomanBatteryAtGallipoli.jpg: if this was created by a news service, why is it a government work?
    - I've added the information from the Library of Congress now as best I could glean (as once again I don't have any experience with this image). The Bain Collection appears to be one of theirs.
      - Suggest using the Bain template. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Added. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - File:French_75_gun_at_Cape_Helles_1915.jpg: where was this first published and what was the author's date of death?
    - Added author details now. No idea as to when it was first published though.
      - G'day, according to the Imperial War Museum this is another Ernest Brooks image. [4] As a serving RN officer who was appointed as the official Admiralty photographer, would this be Crown Copyright? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - File:Gallipoli_Battlefield_(15399670914).jpg: what is the copyright status of the statue itself? Same with File:Gallipoligrave.jpg, File:Çanakkale_Martyrs_Memorial_-_panoramio.jpg.
    - I'll admit to not having any clue about freedom of panorama etc. Is anyone else able to field this one? Once again these are images that I have no connection to so probably will not be able to resolve. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - G'day, I believe freedom of panorama applies here, but could be wrong. I've added this tag to these images. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nikkimaria and Keith-264: Thanks, Nikki, I think all of the above images issues may have been dealt with now. If not, please let me know and I will see what else I can do. The only point that I think might be outstanding is the one about the sizing of the maps. On the article talkpage, Keith had previously been concerned about them being too large, so I wouldn't want to adjust at this stage without further discussion. Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for all your work here AR. I know you are very busy in RL at the moment so I appreciate your assistance a lot mate. Anotherclown (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This appears to be a premature nomination and the nominator is not actively involved in the article's development. Given that nobody else appears keen to adopt the article, I'm closing this review. Anybody with access to the source material who is in a position to address reviewers' commentary may renominate at any time; if you need help or advice, please don't hesitate to ask on my talk page or at WT:MHC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:37, 29 September 2017 (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.