Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yogo sapphire/archive1

Yogo sapphire

Yogo sapphire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Yogo sapphire/archive1

Nominator(s): PumpkinSky (talk) and Montanabw (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it's ready and many have helped; a hearty thank you to Montanabw as co-nom extensive help since the very beginning, Vsmith for professional geological input, Jesse V. for a great GA review, and two formal Peer Reviews; extensive pre-FAC input from Wehwalt and Nikkimaria; and too many others I can't thank enough. This is a unique article on a gemstone found only in one location in the world. PumpkinSky talk 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC) "This is a unique article on a precious gemstone

Support and Image check I had a part in the peer review, and my concerns were answered at that time.

Regarding images: Most are uploads by the photographers, especially the gemstones (pretty). However,

• This one needs evidence of pre-1923 publication

• So does this

• this too

• this as well

On this, I don't think fair use works, but the brooch, as a item of adornment, may not be under copyright. I think the uploader can probably change it to a CC license of his choice, but someone else should probably doublecheck this one.

Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. According to commons:Licensing#United States, an anon work over 95 years old is PD. This would clearly make the Ringold and Hoover photos PD, AFAIK and possibly the other two. As for the FU photo, I've notified the uploader so he can respond here. PumpkinSky talk 15:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I just went by the tags, which claim pre-1923 publication. We'll work it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: Anonymous photos published before 1923 are always in the public domain. Anonymous unpublished photos are only in the public domain if they were taken before 1892, as later unpublished photos are copyrighted. Unpublished here means that the photo hasn't been published anywhere before 2003 as any later publications do not affect anything. Anonymous photos first published between 1923 and the end of February 1989 are sometimes in the public domain (requires more information about the publication). Anonymous photos first published between 1 March 1989 and the end of 2002 are never in the public domain unless the photo was published without permission from the copyright holder (in which case it doesn't count as "publication"). All photos appear to have been taken after 1891, so they are only in the public domain if they have been published somewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt's assessment, and I personally do not feel that a non-free use rationale is required for the image in question. However, it is currently tagged as both public domain and non-free, which is something of a nightmare- there can't really be any middle ground. Every image is, for our purposes, only one of "free" and "non-free". The old images, if they are public domain because they have been published, require evidence of publication- if they are public domain for some other reason, they require a change of copyright tags. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Tim1965#Conchita_image where Nikkimaria and Tim1965 say an image can have two licenses and I said I didn't get it then either. People smarter than me on images need to resolve this. Are you saying it's PD?PumpkinSky talk 18:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments by MONGO:

Check MOS here for image placement. I sorted a few out, but the History section is pretty crowded and all the images seem to be relevent to the section.--MONGO 02:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I was watching that while you were doing it. I understand. I just moved two in history for now. We may need to relook after licensing is sorted out. PumpkinSky talk 02:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver peer review says the article is missing a few non-breaking stops   but I only saw one as an embedded note (1 mm)--MONGO 03:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I fixed that one. I also fixed some whitespace with a script.PumpkinSky talk 10:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Will endorse for FA if and when image issues are cleaned up.--MONGO 17:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review

• FN31: how does this source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• FN57: painting title should be italicized
• Why provide province for Vancouver and not Toronto? Those are of about equivalent recognizability IMO, so either include it for both or neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Note on spotchecking - I performed an in-depth spotcheck of this article just over a month ago, and all issues found at that time were addressed. However, I did not (and do not) have access to two significant sources (Voynick 1985 and Kane 2003), and there have of course been changes since then, so it's to delegate discretion whether a spotcheck is needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)