Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Radzymin (1920)/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 not promoted by GrahamColm 09:59, 26 February 2012 [1].

Battle of Radzymin (1920)[edit]

Nominator(s): //Halibu tt 16:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started an extensive re-write back in October (from this stub). The re-write got out of hand and the article ended up being a GA and an A-class article. It has had extensive copyedits for GA and A-class already (big thank you to Adamdaley, Piotrus, Demiurge1000, AustralianRupert and Vecrumba) and I believe it is ready for FAC now. //Halibu tt 16:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Essentially drive-by, as I have only read the lead, but a few points:

Give the dates (1919–21) of the Polish-Soviet War in the opening sentence
Why is this single citation in the lead, when the same point is made in the text and, for consisitency, could be referenced there?
Delete peacock term "extremely"

Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

added the date and deleted the pt. Not sure about the citation in the lead. The point is not made anywhere else in the article and I really have no idea what would be the appropriate section to mention that - if not the lead. And this is important piece of information, as many people believe that since Battle of Warsaw is most commonly called a battle, it was a battle in its' own rights, while in reality it was a military operation consisting of a number of smaller battles. Any ideas? //Halibu tt 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the point is covered in the "Result and assessment" section, which includes: "it was one of the cornerstones of the overall success in the Battle of Warsaw" – hardly different from what's in the lead. It is a general principle that everything of significance in the lead should be refelected in the text. I don't think that's a problem here, it's just the inappropriate location of the citation. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. //Halibu tt 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These points are resolved now. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Avoid sandwiching text between images
File:The_fighting_near_Radzymin.jpg: what steps have been taken to look for previous publication? Same for other images from that source
File:Battle_of_Warsaw_-_Phase_1.png: on what source(s) was this map based? Same for File:Warsaw_1920_battlefield.svg
File:Kosynierzy_1920.JPG: need more information on source
File:Mogiła_żołnierzy_poległych_w_1920.jpg: need more info on original source.
File:POL_Radzymin_9.jpg: is the architect of the church known? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was pretty sure it depends on your screen resolution and text size. Is it ok now?
2. I'll ask the uploader to comment on that.
3. In the case of Phase 1 I'm not sure, as it's basically a vector version of a map I made... in 2004, in GIMP, with less then satisfactory accuracy. I assume the source might have been the description of the battle in the Polish wiki article on the battle of Warsaw. In the case of the newer File:Warsaw_1920_battlefield.svg I added the following line to the file's description: Shape of rivers loosely based on OpenStreetMap (CC-BY-SA); location of units based on numerous books mentioning the battle of Radzymin (list). Is that what you meant?
4. I added a full citation using the {{cite book}} template
5. What info do you need exactly?
6. Of course. According to the church's website the original church (main aisle and the bell tower) was built by Johann Christian Kammsetzer while the later additions (side aisles, presbyterium, and two towers) were added by Konstanty Wojciechowski. Do you really think this is relevant to this article? //Halibu tt 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second map is now fine. The first I'm less confidant about, as a) the specifics from the battle are overlaid what was presumably a pre-existing map from somewhere, and b) that would mean this map is sourced to a wiki, which is not a reliable source. For point five, the image description says "originally published in: Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny"; I'd like to know what type of source that is, when it was published and by whom, and possibly a page number. As for the church, that information is completely irrelevant to this article, but should be added to the image description page per article 34. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not use any pre-existing maps, that map is entirely hand-drawn in GIMP. And unless anyone can copyright the shape of the river Vistula (not in Poland and not in Europe, that's for sure), we should be fine. And as to the sources, it's "sourced" to wiki in a way that the wiki described that "this army attacked westwards to the north of Vistula". Or it could be any book on the war of 1920, I don't really remember as all of them write basically the same when it comes to general movements of Polish and Russian armies. I'm sorry, but it's only for orientation purposes. It doesn't precisely represent the route of particular units and it's not 100% accurate. Much like this file does not show actual bacteria. It only shows their representation.

As to the architects, I won't argue, though we have freedom of panorama here in Poland. Names added to Image info.

As to Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny, it was a newspaper and a news agency active between 1910 and 1939. I asked Piotrus for more info on the pics. //Halibu tt 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I ever got the message - or it got lost. Anyway, I am not sure what else to add to the pics. I would like to hear from an expert on the status of pre-1923 photos that have never been released (as far as one can tell) and have been recently scanned and made available online. Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs#Poland confirms that reproduction of works in PD in Poland does not renew the copyright, just like it doesn't in the USA. Template:Anonymous-EU seems to be based on the photo being published somewhere in the first place, as does Template:PD-Polish, which is not valid for photos published after 1994. So what are the correct templates to apply for old images that have only recently been scanned? They do not gain a new copyright, they are anonymous as far as we can tell, yet because the mentioned templates require previous publication, does it make them perpetually copyrighted, under the logic "since we don't know when the author died, we have to assume they are immortal"? We are talking about photos from 1920 here, but frankly, now I doubt what license to use for 19th century anonymous photos, or even 15th century anonymous paintings that were published for the first time in Poland after 1994. I am lost; what is the Poland or EU version of Template:PD-UK-unknown? Note how this UK template clearly states that all pre-1942 photos that were anonymous are PD, even if they were not released to public. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I looked at Copyright law of Poland. Of relevance:

"According to the Art.3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 (valid until 1952) and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) printed without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are public domain. Status of those photographs did not change after Polish Copyright Law of February 4, 1994 was enacted." This is confirmed by my reading of Polish Wikipedia article ("W Polsce fotografie korzystają z nieograniczonej ochrony prawem autorskim dopiero od roku 1994. Wcześniej, na podstawie ustawy o prawie autorskim z roku 1926 i art. 2 ust.1 ustawy o prawie autorskim z roku 1952 korzystały tylko fotografie posiadające "wyraźnie zastrzeżenie prawa autorskiego".") and the text of the 1926 law here.

"According to the Art.21 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 (valid until 1952) photographs lose copyright protection ten years after picture was taken. Series of scientific or artistic pictures lose copyright protection after 50 years. According to Art. 27 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 (valid until May 23, 1994) photographs and series of photographs lose copyright protection ten years after publication date."

What the above suggests to me is that the Template:PD-Polish has an incorrect requirement (or unfortunate wording), that the photos have had to been published. My reading of the above does not support that wording, it seems that unless the photo has a copyright notice on itself, it was not copyrighted (and/or the copyright expired after 10 years). This suggests to me that all photos taken in Poland prior to 1994 are now in public domain (with the potential exception for clearly copyrighted photos taken or published in or after 1984, which is not the case here anyway). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, digging through Commons I found this AFD discussion which seems to support my argument above (unpublished photos from family archives have been voted as keep under Poland-PD several times), see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leszek Moczulski 1978 1980.jpg. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the template is the same as at pl:Szablon:PD-PRL. There are miles of discussion about this template at Polish Wikipedia and they did not extended it to the images without proof of publication (or distribution in some form). The way I remember the argument goes like this: Art.21 relates to conditions needed for a photograph to LOOSE copyright protection. Unfortunately for all the photographs that LOST it copyright protection was restored with Art. 124 of 1994 law. pl:Szablon:PD-PRL and commons:template:PD-Polish relies on the fact that although Art. 124 restored copyright to works that LOST it ("do których prawa autorskie według przepisów dotychczasowych wygasły"), according to Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 photographs that meet those narrow conditions never enjoyed copyright protection in the first place so they could not loose it ("Prawo autorskie do utworów fotograficznych [] istnieje pod warunkiem, że zastrzeżenie wyraźne uwidoczniono na odbitkach."). As a result both Polish Wikipedia and Commons require the proof of publication or distribution for images using this template, the condition most images from this article do not meet, nor do any images using template:PD-Polish on this wiki.

At some point I was interested in images from Warsaw Uprising and I uploaded several hundred of them - all images were found online and were carefully matched to photographs found in books from 1950's. I assume similar thing can be done for photographs from 1920 war. --Jarekt (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After some more thinking I realize that there will be harder to find published images from that war since they would have to come from books published in 1920-1939 period. I doubt books published after 1939 would have much on the subject. --Jarekt (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments - After 20 days and no support for promotion, I think this candidate would benefit from being archived. I advise that all the issues pertaining to the images are resolved before renomination. Graham Colm (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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