Talk:Klondike Gold Rush/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) 16:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm placing this review on hold to allow time for some of the below to be addressed. Please let me know if any points need explanation or clarification. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and formatting[edit]

  • See here for dablinks and double redirects
  • Mixture of American and British English - pick one and be consistent
  • Chose Canadian: South-east and north-west + rumour and harbour
  • I like the inclusion of the Appendix, but there are some consistency issues (pass or Pass, and which pass?), and I think something like "set granite buckets" is a higher priority for wikilinking than "frying pan"
  • There could be many readers out there wondering what a frying pan was! :) I've made the changes. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prospectors could relatively easily lodge mining claims" -> "Prospectors could lodge mining claims relatively easily"
  • Ranges should consistently use endashes
  • Done (- replaced by &ndash in body text). Soerfm (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who lived along the river including the Klondike River area" - phrasing
  • Terms like United States don't need to be linked, terms like Pierre Berton do
  • "In the late-19th century" -> "In the late 19th century". In general, check use of hyphens and commas
  • Done specific example - will check the rest. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These units were armed and equipped with Maxim guns" - "armed and equipped" seems redundant
  • "which could be 500-foot" -> "which could be 500 feet"
  • Eldorado creek or Creek? Check for naming/capitalization consistency
  • "Tagish Charley spent lavishly" - he was previously referred to as "Dawson Charlie", so it isn't obvious that they're the same person

Accuracy and verifiability[edit]

  • Spotchecks of 5 sources found no concerning close paraphrasing or misrepresentation of sources
  • Since Dawson City is in Canada, 25 November is not Thanksgiving
  • Needs a footnote about Americans in Dawson celebrating Thanksgiving on this day. Soerfm (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can can a reference for that. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is escaping me. I've taken it out for now, and we can always add it in when the page reappears! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include both authors for short citations to two-author works?
  • I'm trying to spot which ones we've missed...? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing bibliographic info for Morse 2002, Polly 2010
  • No citations to Moffatt 1996
  • FN 184: formatting
  • Don't mix different citation templates
  • Is this a problem with the web page citations? I think all the rest are sfns so presumably consistent. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's the bibliography - cite book vs citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to be cite book as opposed to citation. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broad[edit]

  • "The Russians and the Hudson Bay Company had both explored the Yukon in the first half of the 19th century, but ignored the rumours of gold in favour of fur trading" - why?
  • "the government did not give the matter much attention" - why?
  • Berton is vague here, but he does mention the civil service being slow about things, so I've added that in. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neither action was popular with the respective domestic publics" - consider adding a sentence or two further explaining this

Neutrality[edit]

  • Can we use a term other than "naked dancing"?
  • I've given it a go. The original text has it as "cavorting nude"! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that certainly would have been completely neutral ;-). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was reduced to kitchen work" - phrasing
  • "one of Chaplin's best films" - according to who, or by what metric?
  • The opinion is from Dan Kamin, but it's not relevant here, so I've trimmed. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the classic secondary historian of the period" - explain
  • I've gone for a wikilink - shout it you think more's required in the footnote itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stability[edit]

  • Some vandalism but no recent edit-warring

Images[edit]

  • Routes map needs to be a bit bigger to be legible
  • File:Miners_register_claims.jpg needs date
  • File:Klondike_kate_rockwell_portrait.jpg: tag used requires pre-1923 publication, not creation - when and where was this first published? This concern also applies to several other images
  • I had similar thoughts a few weeks ago. I can find various references to these sets of pictures having been circulated to newspapers and other publishers at this time, which will count as "publication" under US law. I'll try to pull a standard paragraph together to add to the images in question. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Skookum_Jim_Mason.png: given the caveats included under Permission, not sure the US licensing tag used is justified
  • I've identified the photographer, who died in 1917 if that helps at all. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images - further. Okay, I've been looking into this a bit and it's going to be complex. At the heart of the issue is that the rules state that "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work."

Now, many of the pictures were taken in Canada, where the rules state that if "it is a photograph that was created prior to January 1, 1949", we're okay. But these still need to be okay under US law.

So... next question is, when was the photograph published in the US? In some cases, this is clear (e.g. Eric Hegg's published volumes around 1900) What about those that don't appear in books or newspapers? US law is actually slightly more helpful to us here, in that although the 1909 law does not define it, later legal definitions (e.g. the US 1976 copyright act) make clear that "publication" includes the offering of copies of photographs for sale or lease to groups of wholesalers, broadcasters, etc., provided that the purpose is further distribution, public per­formance, or public display. This means that publication could include the offering of commercial photographs for sale to newspapers and other bodies, regardless of whether or not they were actually bought and published.

If they weren't published, it gets more difficult. If they were never published the key point is life of the author plus 70 years; this gets harder, as some may have been put into books during those seventy years. You don't have to prove that they weren't (this would be legally impossible), but you do need to do due diligence. If they were published, rules vary according to which year it was.

If they were anonymous and unpublished, then it is the date of creation plus 120 years - not too helpful just now for the gold rush sadly.

If the photographs were published in the US before 1923, they're now PD. The problem is demonstrating this. In some cases, though, such as the Seattle firm of Webster and Stevens that bought, reproduced and offered many of Eric Hegg's photos for sale for photojournalism and advertising from the first decade of the 1900s onwards, the case is simpler, as we can demonstrate that they were, en masse, clearly offered for sale or lease by the nature of the firm's work. (NB: you can search on the two databases linked in "External links" by Webster and Stevens easily, and all of these should fit the pre-1923 publication rules).

Where does this leave us? Case by case, I'm afraid, and we'll have to clarify each of the Commons files I suspect. Some examples:

  • Crowd Assembled at Dawson Post Office, Yukon 1899.jpg. Photographed by Henry Joseph Woodside, died 1929, no evidence of it being published in the US (I've checked the more obvious books, etc.) Life plus 70 years is 1999, we're okay.
  • ChilkootPass steps.jpg. Photographed by George Cantwell, died 1948; if there's no evidence of it being published in the US, we're not within 70 years
  • Excelcior-1897.jpg. Sam Partridge. I can't find a date of death for him, but his photographs, including this one, are typically commercially labelled with his US studio name etc. and were clearly designed to sold as published works. Luckily, in this case, there is an identical photo in Winslow's 1952 volume "the Big Pan Out"; she describes it in the intro as being a contemporary newspaper clipping, so it was clearly published during the period, and is therefore pre-1923. Okay to use.
  • ChilkootPass BoundaryLine.jpg. Anonymous, no evidence of it being published in US though, date of creation plus 120 years, not so good for us to use.
  • In which case, unless we can demonstrate it was published in the US, it's within the life + 70 years for Hegg (died 1948), so we've problems. It may, however, have a close duplicate within the published Webster and Stevens collection here. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dawson-1899.jpg. Asahel Curtis, died 1941, 70 years ago earlier this year. I've seen similar photos, but none identical. Unpublished in US, but life plus 70 years, we're okay.

This could take us a while, and we'll need to mark up each Commons file with the right permissions, but should be worth it if we go to Featured Article. What do you reckon? Worth making a list of the current photos here, then working through them all? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're planning on taking this to FA, almost certainly worth the time to make sure the copyright/licensing is done right. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.
I'll work through in order through the article... There's a useful PD-US-unpublished tag which covers items unpublished before 2003.
  • ChilkootPass steps.jpg. Photographed by George Cantwell, died 1948; if there's no evidence of it being published in the US, we're not within 70 years - problem. :Update - good news, found a publication in 1900. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skookum Jim Mason.png. Joseph Duclos (1863-1917). I'm not aware of this being published in the US by 1987 (70 year rule), copyright needs altering but otherwise probably ok; Duclos also offered his photographs for public sale. I'd suggest Canadian PD and PD-US-unpublished tags. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excelcior-1897.jpg. Sam Partridge. I can't find a date of death for him, but his photographs, including this one, are typically commercially labelled with his US studio name etc. and were clearly designed to sold as published works. Luckily, in this case, there is an identical photo in Winslow's 1952 volume "the Big Pan Out"; she describes it in the intro as being a contemporary newspaper clipping, so it was clearly published during the period, and is therefore pre-1923. Okay to use, but Commons file needs updating with the details. US-PD tag fine. :Done. 17:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • ChilkootPass GoldenStairs2.jpg. Listed as Murdock, G.G., but suspect this should be G. G. Murdoch. I can't find a date of death for Murdoch, which will make it difficult to use this. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC) We're on a roll - published version found. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boats-on-yukon-1898.jpg Eric Hegg, died 1948, no evidence of US publication, within life + 70 rule; not okay. :Done. Removed and replaced by PD image of similar boat. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pelly River 1898.png. Originally photographed by Hegg, but bought and subsequently copied/sold by Per Edward Larss (died 1941) and Joseph Duclos (1863-1917). Okay under life + 70 yr rule. I'd suggest Canadian PD and PD-US-unpublished tags. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChilkootPass BoundaryLine.jpg Eric Hegg, died 1948, no evidence of US publication, within life + 70 rule; not okay. Replaced with alternative picture. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Underground-mining-klondike.jpg Asahel Curtis. Asahel Curtis, died 1941, 70 years ago earlier this year. Unpublished in US, but life plus 70 years, we're okay. I'd suggest Canadian PD and PD-US-unpublished tags. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miners register claims.jpg Eric Hegg, died 1948, no evidence of US publication, within life + 70 rule; not okay. Replaced. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skookum-jim-bonanza-1898.jpg Asahel Curtis. Asahel Curtis, died 1941, 70 years ago earlier this year. Unpublished in US, but life plus 70 years, we're okay. I'd suggest Canadian PD and PD-US-unpublished tags. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dyea-waterfront-1898.jpg Eric Hegg, died 1948, no evidence of US publication, within life + 70 rule; not okay. I've an alternative, need to scan it though.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skagway-oct-1897.jpg Eric Hegg, died 1948, no evidence of US publication, within life + 70 rule; not okay. I've an alternative, need to scan it though.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dawson-1899.jpg. Asahel Curtis, died 1941, 70 years ago earlier this year. Unpublished in US, but life plus 70 years, we're okay. I'd suggest Canadian PD and PD-US-unpublished tags.
  • Dawson-1898-mud.jpg. Per Edward Larss (died 1941) and Joseph Duclos (1863-1917). No evidence of US piblication, okay under life + 70 yr rule. I'd suggest Canadian PD and PD-US-unpublished tags. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dawson City Monte Carlo Bar.jpg Eric Hegg, died 1948, no evidence of US publication, within life + 70 rule; not okay. Removed. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dawson City NWMP 1898.jpg Anonymous, no evidence of it being published in US though, date of creation plus 120 years, not so good for us to use. Removed. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crowd Assembled at Dawson Post Office, Yukon 1899.jpg. Photographed by Henry Joseph Woodside, died 1929, no evidence of it being published in the US. Life plus 70 years is 1999, we're okay. I'd suggest Canadian PD and PD-US-unpublished tags. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Klondike kate rockwell portrait.jpg. Anonymous, no evidence of it being published in US though, date of creation plus 120 years, not so good for us to use. Replaced with alternative photograph. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dawson-prost-1899.jpg Anonymous, no evidence of it being published in US though, date of creation plus 120 years, not so good for us to use. Removed, will replace with an alternative in a moment. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Klondike-nome-1899.jpg. Per Edward Larss (died 1941) and Joseph Duclos (1863-1917). Okay under life + 70 yr rule. I'd suggest Canadian PD and PD-US-unpublished tags. :Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I have found an academic list of which Larss photographs were sold as postcards at the time, which will give us a backup list of published photos if we need them.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I'll go through and make the necessary changes on the above later on tonight. NB:Soerfm, I've left you some comments on the image labels of the maps you added on your talk page: the descriptions need to be accurate, and at the moment they're rather off in places. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will look at it. I suppose you mean both captions and Commons-descriptions. I am trying to get a confirmation from UW that the photos are public domain. Soerfm (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Commons descriptions are the key issue. UW either need to confirm a pre-1923 publication date, or confirm that they both hold legitimate copyright to the photos and are prepared to release them under a suitable license. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: all the images in the main text are now suitably licenses. We still need to do the ones in the gallery, but I'll do that tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latest edition corrected. I think all the actions from the review are now done.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Klondike_Gold_Rush/GA1&oldid=463627140"