Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Act of Independence of Lithuania

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Act of Independence of Lithuania

Article is result of collaborative work by editorial team – user:Novickas, user:Renata3 and user:M.K. As a result article covers important issue of Lithuania's history, is well referenced, comprehensive, has unique and free historical pictures, graphic representations etc. If you have questions, comments I (or my colleagues) will happily answer them. M.K. 12:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Both of the pictures on the page have unclear copyright status. They are listed as cc-sa-2.5, but the images also state "Owned by Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus (National Museum of Lithuania). Usage granted by coffer curator from National Museum administration. For any questions regarding this image contact Museum administration." Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, doesn't it mean that the owner gave permission to release images under cc?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? Color me doubtful. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License states that You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor and that you see as Owned by Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus (National Museum of Lithuania) is attribution, demanded by license. It is the only Museum request, that when using pictures the proper label to Museum should be provided, usage and label of image is directly fits to the license frame. M.K. 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the image upload page says, yes. It also says "Owned by Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus (National Museum of Lithuania). Usage granted by coffer curator from National Museum administration. For any questions regarding this image contact Museum administration." This leads me to believe it was not licenced under cc-by-sa-2.5, which has a lot more terms than "use their name". Where did you get the image from? Did you send whatever coorespondence existed to permissions@wikimedia.org? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your are referring to "source" part, which aim was to inform that not contributor X made these images and they can be found in LNM. It would be much simple if your specifically point which parts and how makes you doubt. M.K. 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures are probably in the public domain anyways. One of the pictures, after some daunting research appeared to be in public domain (taken in 1905 by Aleksandras Jurašaitis who died in 1915; Lithuania has 70 years after author's death rule). The second (with all twenty members) despite being very popular image does not have the author indicated in any sources. Therefore as "author unknown" work it is in public domain. Renata 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor object. Main point: I believe 'Aftermath' section should be expanded, with reactions of various factions - in Lithuania and among its neighbours to it, how it impacted their plans and eventually shaped the situation of the interwar period, before the article is comprehensive. Also, in the history of section, it would be interesting to learn if there were any factions which preffered a different outcome, and why (Krajowcy comes to mind). Other comments. In 'Act of December 11, 1917', it would be very usefulto know who voted how. I would think that the House of the Signatories and the museum are notable and should be linked. 'Path to the Act' is quite impressive. 'Final text of the Act': English should go to the left, as it is what most readers will start (and end) with. The text of the act should be on the Wikisource. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer to your points a bit later, but for start - do you suggesting that original text of Act should be deleted from article? M.K. 16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's short ant ties in in a useful way (color coding) with the history graph. But it should be copied to Wikisource. Note that comments are not part of the objection, they are just comments (neutral vote). PS. It's usually a good idea to streamline the FACs by going through WP:PR and WP:GAC first.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Aftermath" was kept short for a purpose: the article has a very narrow focus, i.e. the one page document that was signed by 20 men. It is way out of the scope to include the formation of Lithuanian identity, anything more detailed about the dreams regarding Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Grand Duchy of Lithuania, ideas of those who sought only autonomy, or other "visions." It belongs to a whole new article with much wider focus. Renata 13:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, a brief discussion of various factions view of the Act would be in order. Or was the act unanimously supported by all internal and external sides? One more comment: Jonas Basanavičius Prize seems notable, and who awards it?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article House of the Signatories is up and running, in future it will be expanded. I also think that "Aftermath" should have narrow focus; inclusion various factions and their opinions should go to article something like History of Lithuania (1918-1940). About moving EN Act's text to right, it can result mixing all these LT lines [1,2,3 etc] which is vital. M.K. 20:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - most compherehensive article in English that you could ever find. Well-sourced, and well-written. Renata 13:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent piece of work, written in clear, effective prose, which explains a complicated subject lucidly and fascinatingly. Two minor points: although I know about Brest-Litovsk, it might require an explanatory phrase at first mention, for those who don't. And I found the point about the word "finally" obscure. That did become clear when I came to the word in the text of the treaty, but perhaps the containing phrase needs quoting as part of the explanation, so the significance is immediately apparent. Well done to all editors. qp10qp 15:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Brest-Litovsk I expanded part like this: Germany failed to recognize Lithuania as an independent state, and the Lithuanian delegation was not invited to the Brest-Litovsk negotiations, which started in 1917-12-22 between Central Powers and Russia in order to settle territorial claims. Is it satisfactory to you?

For "finally" I added these -"" to the original word and translation. Also added that finally is translation; hope it solves a bit problem M.K. 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both much clearer now. Cheers. qp10qp 16:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - one of best articles on the topic I've seen in English language.--Lokyz 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great job! Juraune 08:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done, factually accurate, with sources and links. Orionus 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definitely. --Lysy^talk 09:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.