Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Migration of the Serbs/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2016 [1].

See Migration of the Serbs (painting)

Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: previous FAC before name change Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Migration of Serbs/archive1 Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two weeks since the article was failed due to lack of reviews and I figured I'd give it a second shot. It is about a 19th-century Serbian oil painting by Paja Jovanović. I've addressed all the concerns that were raised at the previous FAC and hope a sufficient number of reviewers will come round to taking a look at it this time round. 23 editor (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – There's a touch of WP:OVERLINK (Budapest, Belgrade, The Bible, United States, New York) and although false titles are generally, and most commendably, avoided, there's one for "Author Tim Judah" and another for "Historian Katarina Todić" (who, by the way, must surely opine that "there are" rather than "their are"). Nothing of any great moment there, and though I am anything but expert on the visual arts I am happy to support the FA candidacy; as far as I can judge the criteria are met. – Tim riley talk 22:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim. Your comments have been addressed. 23 editor (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Most of what I might have commented on (as in a recent GA on another painting) has been improved in the last few days, making this a worthy nomination. I think "naturalistic" is meant rather than "naturalist", and one or two wikilinks on such styles of painting and a few terms like ethnography might be in order, but in truth this is a highly-polished article that would already look fine on the front page. I've added the category History paintings: perhaps this term might be linked in the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time, Chap. I have addressed your comments as well. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – definitely worthy of FA status. Nice work!--Zoupan 02:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zoupan! 23 editor (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support One might hope for a more sophisticated analysis of the style than Filipovitch-Robinson seems to offer, but there may well not be one. Otherwise my points last time have been dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. 23 editor (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: an interesting and well written article about a beautiful paiting. I think, the following modifications are necessary before its promotion:

• First sentence under the subtitle "Commissioning": "In the early 1890s, Hungarian officials announced plans for a Budapest Millennium Exhibition to be held in 1896; it was to mark the 1,000th anniversary of the establishment of the Kingdom of Hungary, the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, reaffirm Hungary's "national and territorial legitimacy" and the Hungarian people's "natural and historical right in the areas they inhabited."" (The Kingdom of Hungary was established in 1000, and Hungary celebrated the 1,000 anniversary of the Hungarian Conquest in 1896).
• Fourth sentence in the lead: "Measuring 580 by 380 centimetres (230 by 150 in), the first painting was completed in 1896, and presented to Patriarch Georgije later that year." Borsoka (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Borsoka! Here are the changes . Thanks for taking interest in the article. If there's anything else to improve, feel free to bring it up. 23 editor (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- image/source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ian. I was hoping Nikkimaria would take a look at the image licensing. 23 editor (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods; those that are, should
• File:Serbmigra.jpg has two slightly different copyright tags - the second appears correct
• File:Migration_of_the_Serbs.jpg: the given licensing would mean that the work is non-free in the US, absent another tag. But is there a reason why this tag would not apply to the above image as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've made some tweaks. What do you think? 23 editor (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any changes on the second image? On the first, you'll need to add a parameter to each tag to avoid those error messages. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Alright, I've clarified that lithographic prints of File:Serbmigra.jpg were published shortly after its completion in 1896 (as mentioned in the article). I can't seem to get rid of the error message under Licensing though. 23 editor (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I've now realized that there is a more serious problem, which I apologize for missing earlier: copyright law in Serbia changed in 2004 from life+50 to life+70. Since these works were still under copyright at that time, they would have been affected by the extension. Assuming so, we'll need to transfer them to en.wiki as they likely would not be free in Serbia. 16:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I'm not sure I follow. Should all three images have non-free use rationale? 23 editor (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. If they were published before 1923, they are in the public domain in the US, which means we can host them on English Wikipedia as PD. However, Wikimedia Commons requires that images be PD in both the US and the country of origin - in this case Serbia - so if they are not PD in Serbia they should not be hosted there. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Nikkimaria, I think I've finally managed it. What do you say? 23 editor (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First image is fine. Second has the correct licensing, but will need to be moved to English Wikipedia, unless it's PD in Serbia for another reason? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my utter incompetence, Nikkimaria. How does one move a file from Wikimedia to English Wikipedia? You'd think I'd have picked up on the procedure given that I've been editing for quite a few years now. Guess not. 23 editor (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - it's deliberately made easier to go the other way. You'll need to download the Commons file to your computer, upload it locally through the "upload this file" interface, copy over the image description information, and tag the Commons version for speedy deletion. Do check first that there's no other reason the image might be PD in Serbia though. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done , Nikki. Thanks for your patience. Kind regards, 23 editor (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Would it be okay for me to put up a new solo FAC since this has been up for nearly three months and has 5 (+1 ) supports and no opposes? 23 editor (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should be okay. You might list a source review request at the top of WT:FAC (unless Nikki has the time to take care of it first). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref formatting all in order.
• Earwigs' copyvio check all clear
• Filipovitch-Robinson 2005 used once. material faithful to source.
• Judah 2000 - p.2 used twice. material faithful to source. I can't see pp. 14-15 here in Oz.
• Judah 1999- pp.30-31 used once. material faithful to source.
• online ref 28 - used once. material faithful to source.

Spot check all in order. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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