Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pzoxicuvybtnrm ( talk · contribs) 06:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The lead should probably be expanded to encompass the history section, which it currently does not.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Can you explain this whole issue about the images and their status in various countries?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I will place the article on hold for a minor issue.

Thank you for the review! I will expanded the lead to summarize the history very shortly. I don't think I can do justice in explaining it, but know that photos licenced under {{ PD-Canada}} are accepted on Commons if the copyright expired by 1996 (because if any Disney films become public domain the world will end... probably also the reason the US hasn't adopted the rule of the shorter term), as Commons is based in the US. Pictures taken by government employees on duty are placed under Crown Copyright, which expires 50 years after the image is first published (all my old photos are out of Annual reports or archival collections which explicitly date the photos).

Personally, I ignore this caveat. If its public domain in Canada, I upload it, because it wasn't published in the US and because its not a product of America. In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure of the U.S. status of the 1951 photo, and it'd be better for someone more informed to make such a call. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 17:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply

So I've done more research, but still can't get a clear answer. Copyright renewal in the U.S was applied to anything not in the public domain on January 1, 1996... However, the crown copyright for Canada is pretty clear: The copyright of works produced by the government expire after 50 years. This is an explicit statement from the copyright holder, which I believe would supercede general copyright law. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 18:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't think I'll hold the article back on the issue, but if some expert on the issue hops along hopefully they can deal with it. —  P C B 02:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I've brought it up at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, and the only reply seems to make sense... If the governments own copyright term says it expires after 50 years then that should apply everywhere, not just in Canada. I just expanded the lead, so check that out as well. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 03:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Looks good. I will now pass the article. —  P C B 04:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply