# Talk:French cruiser Bruix

This review is transcluded from Talk:French cruiser Bruix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 21:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this one on - should have time to review it tomorrow morning. Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Ordinals for dates should not be used per WP:BADDATEFORMAT (frankly, I think that's stupid, but I don't make the rules)
I'd link Durazzo
Check ENGVAR, I see armor and armoured, among other things
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The ship is mentioned on Italian cruiser Coatit - apparently Bruix witnessed what her captain considered a war crime during the Italo-Turkish War and he made a formal complaint.
Bruix was present in the Philippines during the Spanish American War - see here
Yeah, Feron mentions that, but it was basically just a port visit after the Battle of Manila or somesuch. I can add it if you think it's worthwhile.
Yeah, I'd probably include it - the European powers all rushed warships to the Philippines to protect their interests after the battle (the Germans having been a bit more ham-fisted than the rest) and it seems worthwhile to include the French contingent.
Mentioned a couple of times here escorting convoys off West Africa during the war.
Not sure which ones you mean, exactly, as the only convoy that I could find mention of was the troop convoy from French West Africa, and all of those sources look familiar. Annoying thing is that Feron doesn't mention anything about the Cameroons campaign at all, which is a very curious lacunae in his account.
Huh, must not have copied the right link. I'll see if I can track it down again.
Think it was this one.
This states that a mutiny took place aboard the ship but gives no details, though it's not exactly a specialist source on the French Navy, so it might well be incorrect/confused.
No mutiny, but a little unrest that was settled by the ship's captain. I can add it if you think I should expand it.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Don't think File:Bruix-Marius Bar-img 3136.jpg qualifies as PD in the US - Bar didn't die until 1930, so it would have been under French copyright until 2000, which means the US copyright would have been extended by the URAA in 1996, unless we can find proof that it was published before 1923.
I've used Marius Bar photos on lots of FACs and nobody's ever pointed this out before. Your logic sounds reasonable, but wouldn't it still be PD under the life +70 doctrine in the US and all I need to do is change the license?
I guess nobody has caught it before. The URAA is a major pain in the ass - it's why I can't use a lot of Stower's stuff (see Jappalang's comments in the Moltke FAC), which is basically the same situation (he died in 1931 and everything is PD in Germany, but apparently not in the US unless it was pre-1923).
Had to do some research, but French copyright was life +50 when the URAA was passed so Bar is out of copyright. And from my reading, I think Jappalang was wrong about your German since it was published at some point during the 1920s, which meant that its copyright needed to be renewed after 28 years, which likely didn't happen, which meant that it was out of copyright in the US only when they reworked copyright in 1998 and extended copyright for works either already in copyright or unpublished. See the French entry on Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You know, I think you're on to something. I did a bit of digging, and the postwar Welturheberrechtsabkommen limited the term of protection to life of the author plus 25 years. Since Stower died in 1931, his paintings have been out of copyright since 1956 in Germany, which means the URAA is irrelevant and the 70-year term applies. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. The Germans seem to have extended the copyright length with §64 of Urheberrechtsgesetz, according to the page that I mentioned above. So the real question is if it placed material that had fallen out of copyright back into copyright like the Sonny Bono Act did here. If they didn't then you're home free and can collect your $200.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the Germans restored copyrights, but it looks as though the 1993 Copyright Duration Directive restored lapsed copyrights throughout Europe to the 70 year pma standard, so the works would have been put back under copyright for 3 years by the time the URAA was passed. Looks like Bar has to go, afterall. Damn. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that you're right, mainly because the photo was published in 1934, although we don't know if that's the date of first publication or not. I think that the life +70 will still apply, however, for all those photos for which we don't know any publication information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be easy if we had a pre-1923 date, but in the absence of any, we have to assume it's still under copyright. There are few things I hate more than the URAA... Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I'll work on the rest of these later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Done with the rest of these, although I'm going to retain the ordinal. Nick pointed out that ordinal dates have been getting a pass in his FACs and I share your opinion about the MOS rule on them. So, since GAs are not required to be fully compliant with the MOS, I'm not gonna bother as I dislike the artificialities involved in rephrasing without the ordinal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough - I may start using them as well and see where it goes. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)