User talk:Jappalang/Fac1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jappalang. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi. I know you wrote Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge, so I was wondering if you would like to give your input at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bridges in Montreal/archive1. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Padmé Amidala for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe to have addressed your comments. Please check if it meets your approval. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your constructive feedback. I addressed your last comment. Please have a look. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The image you opposed over has been removed. ResMar 23:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I haven't looked through it beyond a cursory glance at the beginning. I'll try to get to it tonight or tomorrow at the latest, I've just had way more on my (real-life) plate than I expected :) Thanks for the gentle badgering. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is a fantastic article and really does match the definition of the best content Wikipedia has to offer. However, I do have a few tidbits that I will comment on but its just very minor quick-fixes. When these tiny things are taken care of I will definitely support the FAC. On a side note, I commend you for being so prominent on getting this FAC process going on being attentive to every comment made. GroundZ3R0 002 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Youre very welcome. The only reason I put a new source is that google books wouldnt let me see the part where it says the market size. Thanks for writing such a quality article on that old favourite game. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I just replied to your comments at the Noronhomys FAC; I'm sorry for not getting back earlier. Ucucha 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but it's a bit disconcerting to see it move to the bottom of FAC with two "leaning to support" comments. Could you please consider whether or not to support fully? Thanks, Ucucha 08:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I was looking at the google books link you placed on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay/archive2‎ and was wondering how do I put them in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant how do I put them in reference form. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jappalang! Could you spare a moment to look at User talk:Elcobbola#Image reviews at FAC? Thanks again for all you do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help! (And congrats on the FA.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just seen that this has been promoted - after a pretty drawn-out FAC but all's well etc. Hope you'll be able to re-engage with WP soon. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My congratulations and thanks for the cow star too - it made me laugh (though alas no milk came out my nose). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a cow man! LOL! thanks for the thankyou message, it was most appreaciated. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just dropping by to thank you for the cow, and to congratulate you on reaching FA. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto the above—both the congratulations and the thanks! Love the cow :) Maralia (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marriott School of Management/archive2. We have tried to address your concerns and would invite your further participation in this FAC. Cheers! —Eustress ^talk 00:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, two very experienced editors, Ruhrfisch and JN, have taken a look and given their support (after I addressed some of their comments). I also added a map to make the location problems clearer. Would you check to see if your concerns are addressed and you're comfortable with the article now? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not like the way the bibliography and citations now appear. I find this very hard to read and use, and I never do it this way. You've complete changed the citations, including using named refs for none sequential refs. I really am upset about this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm ... if I can help out here, Auntieruth55 has a system whereby she provides full publication details in the first citation of a source, and uses short refs for subsequent occurrences. I don't know many Wikipedians who handle their refs this way, but it's a common system in academic publishing, and perfectly logical once you understand the principle. It's passed muster at FAC in a number of her FAs before. --JN466 19:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

	<font=3> Thanks for all your help with the Battle of Dürenstein! Sorry to be such a nuisance about the citations, etc. Your images are terrific! Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JN. Jappalang, I do appreciate your help with the article. Your suggestions (except for this one), have been very to the point, and have improved what was, I thought, a very good article, to an even better very good article. I apologize if I sounded testy. I work hard on the citations to make them precise, and to achieve a level of verifiability, and document their reliability. Your contributions to the pictures, to fixing the table, and to making that map look as good as it now does were much needed, and your insistence on another editor with a more powerful prose editing style (such as JN and Ruhrfisch), definitely helped to improve the article. So please bear with me on the citations, and thanks for all your efforts. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final is currently under FA review and a concern has been raised that one or both of the non-free images used in the article (File:LHUSOpenCupLogo.png and File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg) are in violation of WP:NFCC. The editor who's raised the concerns has not elaborated on them. I've replied to the conerns with my own thinking in the FA review and pinged the editor directly with no replies. User:SandyGeorgia has suggested that your unbiased second opinion would be very helpful. Thank you for your help on this. --SkotyWA^T_C 19:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for providing a second opinion. I've removed the series logo as you suggested. I've also updated the URL from where the image was "plucked" and provided some copyright info. I have a few concerns/thoughts that I put in my reply in the FA review. Please read them and comment when you have time. Thanks again for your help with this FA review. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the image review. I've replied again to your most recent comments. I've decided to follow all of your suggestions and have swapped in the image you suggested which has clearer copyright status and to move the image to the lead. After thinking more on it, I think both suggestions are good for the article. Please reply in the FA review if you agree with how things are now or if you have any further comments. Thanks again for all your help! --SkotyWA^T_C 06:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: [1] Thank you for your help getting the article promoted. Your second opinion and suggestions for changes to the images were instrumental in getting this article over the last hurdle in the FA review. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here at the behest of User:SandyGeorgia to ask if you could do an image review of silky shark for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Silky shark/archive1, when you get a chance. Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you again, but could you revisit your comments at the FAC? I believe they have been largely addressed at this point. Thanks. -- Yzx (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jappalang, I'm working on the bog turtle article which is currently under a pretty heavy FAC review. It has been brought to my attention that the current distribution map is a little incorrect. Anyways, not to bore you, are the images in the following article free to use on Wikipedia?

ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WHMI/WEB/pdf/TechnicalLeaflets/bog_turtle_Oct%2023.pdf

• Thanks, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang - The article Degrassi: The Next Generation is at FAR (see review page here). It looks to be headed towards a keep, but could use an image review. SandyGeorgia suggested pinging you for the review - hopefully you're interested! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang, could I ask you to have a look at the image issue raised by Fasach Nua in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Seduction_of_Ingmar_Bergman/archive1? Sandy has said she would like to have your input. --JN466 13:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As part of the ongoing John Lennon FAC, SandyGeorgia has asked if you would be able to provide a second opinion on an image. A reviewer is objecting to File:John and Cynthia on car.JPG. I maintain that I have successfully argued the case for its retention—at least in its current, cropped form, which excludes John. The discussion is at the top of the FAC page (comments from Fasach Nua). Your contribution there would be welcome. PL290 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, if you can spare a few minutes, this MilHist FAC just needs an image check -- everything's PD or free (GNU) on Commons but if you can see that the paperwork's up to scratch that'd be great... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Flood gates seem to be open as far as image review requests go -- tks for getting to mine... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang, it's Pericles (Eric) from the US, where it is not so humid or as lusciously tropical as Singapore. ;) I was wondering if I could ask for a moment of your time to review the images in Parthian Empire, an article that I've nominated for Featured status. You might like the article simply because it contains a lot of information on ancient China and the Han Dynasty, particularly commercial and diplomatic interactions with Parthia as well as China's early written histories which describe Parthia at length. Anyways, if you could take a look at the images and verify that their licenses and sources are adequate, I could move on with the FAC process. Thank you! Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang.

Can you take a look at File:Madonna_Ciccone.jpg? This is a photo of Madonna's mother (also named Madonna), which as far as I can tell was not "published" in a book until after 1977, although the photo was taken in the 1960s. Would this be PD, using the picture-taking date as the publish time, or would we need to consider the publication in an independent venue (i.e., a book, a magazine, etc)? This is for Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Madonna_(entertainer)/archive1. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I nominated St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao for FA, and have been told that it needs the eyes of an experienced image reviewer before it can pass. If you have some time to look at it and comment, that would be appreciated. Most of the images that appear were shot by me and released into the public domain. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 12:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang, I'm completely swamped-- would you mind pinging me when all is clear there? Thank you so much, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. SandyGeorgia recommended I ask you for your opinion on this image [2] that's been discussed at the FAC nomination for the Sentence spacing article. I asked for other opinions at the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page, but didn't receive a conclusive answer. As a result, I pulled the image from the article, but it would be nice to use it. What do you think? Can this image be used on Wikipedia? --Airborne84 (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang, would you have time to look at the images used in Siege of Godesberg? It is currently at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Siege_of_Godesberg_(1583)/archive1) and has received five supports, but still needs an image review done. --JN466 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you have time, would you mind doing an image review for the FAC for Edmund Evans? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referred to you by SandyGeorgia to find an image reviewer. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992/archive1 and make sure all the images are licensed correctly? It would be greatly appreciated.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have cleared up the issue with the two images you mentioned. What are your views on the infobox image mentioned by Fasach Nua? --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang, could you look in once more on the issue with the Gebhard image in the Siege of Godesberg FAC? Ruth has done some more research on it. --JN466 15:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've had to switch out an image at Edmund Evans because one of the images I've was using had the color balance changed by another user and the caption no longer matched what I was trying to show in the image. Instead I've uploaded File:Caldecott Fox 1883 2.png from the University of Florida Digital Library. I got a warning that the image was up for speedy deletion because it didn't have a source, so if you get a chance, will you check that I've done it correctly and that your FAC review still stands. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Miss Meyers/archive1, I've had an oppose over fair use of a picture of the deceased horse. Given that every other horse FA currently uses a very similar fair use rationale, I'd like a second/third opinon, if you have time to give one. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Godesberg/archive1 has been restarted. As you reviewed the images earlier on, could I ask you to restate the image situation for the benefit of the closing delegate? --JN466 18:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jappalang, long time no talk. Last year you tagged File:Minas Gerais class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg as PD-UK-unknown during the FAC of Minas Geraes-class battleship. For a similar image from the same publication (File:Rivadavia class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg) I copied your tagging, but Elcobbola wants to know "What organizations were contacted" to satisfy the "reasonable enquiry" rule. The link to the new FAC is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rivadavia class battleship/archive1; any help and input would be appreciated. Many thanks,  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

On the FAC for Kent, Ohio a question has arisen about the status of File:Kent city wards streets.png, in particular about its copyright status from the original map I made the file from. Any additional insight would be helpful. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:Elcobbola#Japanese_battleship_Haruna; any help would be appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed your concerns at the Petitcodiac River nomination. Feel free to re-visit. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed your comments again. Thanks for the extremely helpful link. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I emailed you. Tony (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've supplied more detail at WP:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1, as requested. The discussion at WT:FAC#Query to a delegate suggests image clearance is the last outstanding issue with this FAC. If you could swing by again, that would be great. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We are close to wrapping up now. Assuming you are now satisfied with the images, perhaps you could make a note just to clarify? Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the SVG version. The PNG version I had was horrible. I tried to trace it with Inkscape, but I am not much good at that. Wish I knew how you did it, but it looks terrific. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang - I am looking for an image reviewer for the FAR of British Empire. Elcobbola said that there were several issues, but that she doesn't have the time and interest to put them on the page (it's a slightly contentious nomination), and she suggested that I ask you. If you are willing, a review would be much appreciated - if not, that's fine too! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast review! There is some discussion on the page as to whether or not the maps constitute OR - don't know if you have any interest in getting involved in that, but just FYI. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Steamtown, USA has been archived pending the OTRS permission check on those photos you listed. In the meantime, if the person that uploaded File:Bartonsville Covered Bridge.jpg and File:Worrall Covered Bridge East.jpg does not respond to your request, will the photos have to be removed from the article for FA consideration? I actually thought about driving out to Vermont to snap a couple myself this weekend (it is foliage season, afterall) but the most recent information on the Worrall bridge is that it is being restored. A picture of a restored bridge or, worse, one under construction, certainly will not be the same. It is very frustrating, because it appeared that those photos were properly licenced.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Amid other requests for your time, can I ask if you would you take a look at this article's images, and report on the FAC page? I raised a few issues with you some weeks ago, which you Okayed; since then Elcobbola has checked them out at peer review without bringing up any other queries or doubts. There is also one sound file. If it's not possible for you, no worries, someone will do it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As snooty as SandyG was when she explained it, the MoS only colors some quotations green and red to show that they're correct and incorrect, respectively. You don't have to color all quotations green on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Editor Karanacs suggested to me your name as a possible image reviewer of Pedro II of Brazil article. It has been nominated a featured article candidate. If you have some time to spare, could do it (Here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pedro II of Brazil/archive1)? Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang, you raised an issue with the following image in FAC: Image:DanielSedin2009.jpg. However, reviewers are still unsure on its acceptability. It was requested that I get a definitive answer from you. For the time being, the image has been removed from the article. Thanks. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, as you were the GA reviewer for Bring Us Together, I was hopeful you'd be willing to weigh in at the FAC, here Thanks--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look at the changes I made. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can you step in please? ElCob has gone AWOL and it's the only thing outstanding. The editor thinks it is now addressed YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jappalang--Dana boomer at FAR suggested you might be a good person to check the images in Mário de Andrade and see if the concerns brought up at the FAR have been addressed adequately. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi jappalang. At Wikipedia:Featured article review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1, the photographer of one of the images has provided a little info (Search for "I took that photo of the poster"), but has gently declined to help with imaging issues. What to do?• Ling.Nut 00:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am feeling reasonably and absolutely comfortable/confident that not even one of the 5 billion⁺ human beings now living on the face of the planet one will at any time (now, or in the future) ask even one question about whether an effort was made to contact the PRC government to clarify the authorship of a panorama in a photo on Wikipedia. I feel the same way about other issues, but my voice is clearly not heard. • Ling.Nut 05:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As for the mural, well, first off, I believe I have seen scores of templates that say that Wikipedia believes that photos of flat works of art (paintings, murals) are not copyrightable... isn't that right? And second, if it is the property of the government (nmade by a govt employee), wouldn't that make it PD?
  • As for the Torii photos (which I had rmvd before you graciously started reviewing), I am sure that they are PD, but I have little hope of ever being able to verify that. • Ling.Nut 14:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know what I can do. I looked at Commons and flickr; the idiots on flickr are slapping full copyright tags Torii Ryūzō's photos (!) and have too-restrictive CC licenses on all else... and besides, the photos are pretty crappy, anyhow. I don't see anything on Commons either. I am... without any means of help. There seems to be no door open in any direction. • Ling.Nut 03:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your help! I had spent more than a little time looking for images in the past, and had seen several of the ones you posted (but certainly not all of them). In particular, I had never seen FormosaSavage's stuff, and some of it looks usable. I emailed him and implored him for help. We'll see how we fare with the angels of mercy... Those Meiji drawings are just too removed from the subject for me to be comfortable about the authenticity of their details. Some of the other stuff also looks potentially usable as well, but FormosaSavage's look the best. We'll see. Thanks! PS you didn't link the 1747 painting. is it one of those in the [Andrade book? I emailed them about those images. Not only did they not reply, they made it harder to download their images... • Ling.Nut 05:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks for looking into those things for the article! To be honest, i still don't see a mug shot that would look decent atop the page, though two look possible. As for the person I emailed, he replied back once, but no second reply. I'll ping him again tomorrow. One of the images in his postcard collection also seems to be in one of the books; that one (an Atayal woman) is one of the two potential images for the top of the page... though I would rather put that one down further below in the body text... but still, things are not resolved. I will try a screen capture on some of those images either tonight or tomorrow... • Ling.Nut 12:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We would like your help concluding the FAC for Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jappalang, sorry to bother you once more. Since you made a great review in Pedro II of Brazil I'd like to know if you could take a look at Pedro Álvares Cabral. The nomination page is in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pedro Álvares Cabral/archive1. The positive side is that unlike in Pedro II, Cabral's pictures are certainly lacking any issues that might lead to long discussions. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Impossible. All authors died more than 70 years ago. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, why there are all those pictures with tags saying "copyright expired with the death of author plus 70 years"? If they are worth nothing, why do they exist at all? And now I'l take the chance to ask the same question I made in Pedro II of Brazil's FAC: Does every single Featured Artile had to prove that every single image was published before 1921? I'll expand it: Would I have to prove that a medieval painting was published before 1921?

Anyway, in Bueno, Eduardo. A viagem do descobrimento: a verdadeira história da expedição de Cabral. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 1998, p.48 ISBN 8573022027 (in Portuguese), it is written: "Iluminura do século 19 representando Pedro Álvares Cabral e o brasão de sua família" (Miniature of the 19th Century representing Pedro Álvares Cabral and the arms of his family). Above it, is the picture you asked me why all I wrote was the it was from the "1800s". Regards, --Lecen (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

According Nossa História ("Our History") magazine in its issue 18, year 2, published on April 2005, that miniature was published in Dias, C. M. História da Colonização Portuguesa... Porto: N/A, 1923. I added that to the image's page. This it the earliest published worf of that miniature I could found.

If every image has to be proved that it was published before 1923 you know that you should start erasing every single image in Commons, right? Because none of them, including the ones in featured articles has done that. The most they do is have the author's name with his year of death and the "author died more than 70 years ago" tag. That's all. You should also request the Commons'd administrators to fix the tag and make it clear that the uploader has to prove that the work was never published before 2003 (an impossible task) AND that its author died more than 70 years ago. --Lecen (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jappalang. I've changed the tags in the paintings available in Cabral's article:

• File:Pedro alvares cabral 01.png
• File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg
• File:Pedro Alvares Cabral fleet.jpg
• File:Carrack 1565.jpg

The ones related to US-Copyright were changed to others that are more clear and taken in accord with Wikimedia Foundation's policy. Since some of the works were also made in Brazil, I added tags which reveals their copyright status in their country of origin. Lastly, I added a little bit of information (along with sources) to the year of the two maps above. I hope that was what you were looking after since it will make them far more precise as to their copyright status. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I could count on you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back. Well, I believe we are left with three images:

• File:Carrack 1565.jpg
• File:Pedro alvares cabral 01.png
• File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg

1) The first picture, which despicts a nau was taken from "Boxer, Charles R.. O império marítimo português 1415–1825. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2002" ISBN 8535902929 (Here: [3]) It is the Portuguese-translated edition of The Portuguese Seaborne Empire written by C. R. Boxer and published in 1969. The painting is in the gallery (which has comments by the author), by itself not numbered in pages, but is found between pages 222 and 223. Among the several 16th-18th centuries maps available, there is the detail of one which despicts the ship. By the author: "Portuguese nau from an 1565 atlas, atributted to Sebastião Lopes. Symbol of progress of the navigation in the 15th and 16th centuries in relation to the caravels, the naus had the stem and stern high and castellated, three masts and two covers. They were present in the fleets of Columbus, Vasco da Gama and Cabral." That's all. There is no reproduction of the entire map, except for this piece which has the ship. Looking around google, I found out that Sebastião Lopes is a well known Portuguese cartographer who died in 1596 (Here: [4] and [5]).

2) The second picture is a lithography which despicts Cabral. I took it from a defunct history magazine called "Nossa História" (Our History), issue 6 Year 1 (April 2004) ISSN 16797221 . On page 37, the captions says: "Representation of Pedro Álvares Cabral, in lithography of Heaton & Rensburg. The name Santa Cruz given to the lands by him discovered in 1500 refer to the cross he ordered to be risen for the celebration of a mass." Looking at the google, I found in here [6], on page 60: "One of the litographic firms which Aranha worked for was Heaton & Rensburg, opened in 1840 by the English George Mathias Heaton (1804 – after 1855), litographer and painter and by the Dutch Eduard Rensburg (1817-1898), litographer and drawer." The following pages tell that they published several books beginning in 1840. Apparently, the partnership was ended in 1854 and Rensburg assumed full ownership of the company after that. Also, according to this source [7], on page 148, slaves were the ones who did the pictures, although I believe this little piece of information is useless. Regardless, this is why in the picture's description at Commons it is written that it was made between 1840 and 1854. Since it is atributted to both artists, it means that it was made before 1854, which indeed does make sense. If you see Pedro Álvares Cabral#Legacy you will notice that Cabral's tomb was rediscovered in 1839, leading to a surge of interest in him in Brazil from that point. As consequence, the Brazilian Emperor Pedro II sponsored research and works on Cabral in the 1840s and 1850s. That's precisely around the same time when both artists worked together.

3) The third picture is the miniature of Cabral. In "Grandes Personagens da Nossa História (several authors). (v.1) São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1969" there is a reproduction of the picture. On page 35, it does not says who is the author, but only: "Illuminated manuscript from 'Livro das Armadas' . Library of the Academy of Sciences of Lisbon". Another book I have (Bueno, Eduardo. Brasil: uma História. 1. ed. São Paulo: Ática, 2003. ISBN 85-08-08952-X here: [8]) says on page 39: "Hero without a face: Miniature from the 19th century (below) reveals Cabral's facial traits - but it can not be affirmed that it reveals his true face." However, in Nossa História, p.32, issue 18, Year 2, April 2005 it says: "Pedro Álvares Cabral, in allegory by Roque Gameiro." It's a reproduction of the miniature in "Dias, C. M. História da Colonização Portuguesa... Porto: Litografia Nacional, 1923". Was it made by Roque Gameiro? I do not know. Apparently not. What I do know is that it was published in this 1923 book by "C. M. Dias".

However, this miniature was perhaps published by Roque Gameiro in 1900 or 1921. If you see this painting [9] which despicts Cabral's landing, it says that it was published sometime around 1900. Also, he painted the figures in the book A descoberta do Brasil (The discovery of Brazil), published in 1900 [10]. Which makes sense, since it would be the 400th anniversary of Cabral's landing. Lastly, according to this source [11], he painted the figures in the book [12] "história da colonização portuguesa do Brasil" (History of the Portuguese colonization in Brazil) published in 1921. Either way, there is no possible way, at least no to me, to know when it was published for the first time. But if he was making paintings despicting Cabral that were published as early as 1900, that may give a clue. If we take those other books mentioned by me earlier, the miniature must be a very old one which has been published at least since the 19th century and was reproduced by Gameiro. Or, if it was indeed made by Gameiro himself, perhaps it was published in a later edition of Livro das Armadas? I found on the google later editions such as these from 1979[13] and 1995[14]. --Lecen (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You missed one important point: as I mentioned in my earlier message, in "Grandes Personagens da Nossa História (several authors). (v.1) São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1969" there is a reproduction of the picture. On page 35, it does not says who is the author, but only: "Illuminated manuscript from 'Livro das Armadas' . Library of the Academy of Sciences of Lisbon". Since this book (4 volumes in fact) was published in 1969, that is, ten years before this 1979 edition you've mentioned of "Livro das Armadas", there is something missing. Also, if the miniature was reproduced in História da Colonização Portuguesa... by an author called "C. M. Dias" in 1923, it was certainly available earlier than that. After all, this book is not mentioned as one of the works by Gamero. All seems to indicate that it was first seen in 1900, in A descoberta do Brasil (The discovery of Brazil) published by himself. Or at most, in "história da colonização portuguesa do Brasil" (History of the Portuguese colonization in Brazil) published in 1921. Although the 1900 publication seems the correct one, since it would be the 400th anniversary of Cabral's discovery and by then Gamero was already a renowned artist. Either way, if it was published before 1921, wouldn't that be considered in public domain? Lastly, you gave me no reply on the other 2 pictures. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably. If the oldest edition of "Livro das Armadas" is the one of 1979 since the 16th Century, how could another book published in 1969 say that the miniature came from it? Unless there is another edition between 1569 and 1979. I do not know for sure if the miniature was indeed made by Gamero. I have 2 books with the painting. On, of 1969, says that it came from "Livro das Armadas". The other one, from 2002, says that it is a 19th century painting. There is also a magazine that reprinted the painting from a 1923 book, and this the one that says that if from Gamero. I was not able to find anywhere else that it was made by Gamero. Even if it was made by him, since Gamero is not regarded to have worked in this 1923 book, its author must have taken from somewhere else. I really doubt it could have got from th 1922 book which Gamero worked for, since there wuld be no time between one publication and the other. I still believe that the miniaure was probably available much earlier than that. P.S.: What about Cabral's lithography made in the 19th century? What is the issue regarding it? P.S.2: Sorry, but I won't be able to find a copy of those books in here. --Lecen (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It says:

In two other advertisements in the same journal we could perceive this bridge between the past and present made through the image. On 16 January 1859 it was announced: In the next sunday we shall give a portrait of the young and beautiful Princess Isabel of Brazil. This work is published three times a month, "The first issue of Ilustrated Universe was published in 1859, presenting a beautiful litographied portrait of Pedro Álvares Cabral - Discoverer of Brazil. and each issue has also a great journal and an excelent litographed engraving.

On 1st February we already had:

It was published

The 2nd issue of Illustrated Universe of 1859, presenting the litographied portrait of the young Princess Isabel of Brazil, on the 1st issue it was published the portrait of Pedro Álvares Cabral, discoverer of Brazil, and on the 3rd issue it will be published the portrait of Bocaje (...), etc, etc. We still continue to receive subscriptions to this work in the publishing house of editor A. J. Ferreira Silva, quitanda street, 190.

What is this? --Lecen (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I was looking around google and I found a few webites that might help us out. On this one [15] you'll see the miniature and below it it is written "Detalhe do Livro das Armadas: Pedro Álvares Cabral" (Detail of the Livro das Armadas: Pedro Álvares Cabral). The same on this website [16]: "Pedro Álvares Cabral - Detalhe da iluminura do "Livro das Armadas" (Lisboa - Portugal)" ("Pedro Álvares Cabral - Detail of illuminated manuscript from 'Livro das Armadas' (Lisbon - Portugal)"). This one [17] says: "Manuscrito iluminado do "Livro das Armadas", na Biblioteca da Academia de Ciências de Lisboa, Portugal. Nessa iluminura, Pedro Álvares tem sobre si o brasão de Portugal e abaixo um escudo com o desenho de duas cabras, emblema da família Cabral:" (Illuminated manuscript from 'Livro das Armadas', in Library of the Academy of Sciences of Portugal. On this illuminated manuscript, Pedro Álvares has over him the arms of Portugal and below him the arms with the drawing of two goats, the emblem of the Cabral family". And below it: "Reprodução do livro Grandes Personagens da Nossa História, volume 1, 1969, Editora Abril Cultural, São Paulo/SP" (Reproduction of...). This is the same book I have and it was published ten years before this 1979 edition of Livro das Armadas you mentioned before. Is there another edition of it which as published between 1568 and 1979? Update: on page 233 of this book [18] there is a reproduction of th miniature. It says on page 462 that it came from "Manuscrito iluminado do Livro das Armadas com o retrato de Pedro Álvares Cabral. Bibilioteca da Academia de Ciências de Lisboa" (Illuminated manuscript from Livro das Armadas with the portrait of Pedro Álvares Cabral. Library of the Academy of Sciences of Lisbon". This [19] English-written book talks a little bit of the Livro das Armadas. Since there is a 1969 book that says that its source for the miniature was the Livro das Armadas, it is impossible to be dated from the 1979 edition. --Lecen (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could you take a look at the image discussion at WP:TFA/R under November 2? It has to do with the the public domain status of political flyers published in 1950 without copyright image, and the images they may contain.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang, I hate to burden you, but would you have time to spot check some of the reviews from new image reviewers at FAC? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Jappalang. It's not so much that I want you to do more image reviews, rather "teach them to fish" instead of giving them the fish. When new image reviewers show up, it may appear that images have been reviewed, but I'm getting the idea some of these reviews are superficial at best, so if you could spot check some of them, 1) it would give me an idea of how thorough new image reviewers are, and 2) your feedback might be instructive for them and other readers. Hopefully, this will lessen the burden on you and Elcobbola over time, by training new image reviewers. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your image reviews, I found the blank map that I think Red Hat used as a base for his empire map. He changed it to this. It was in his wikimedia contribs. I've added it to the source section. Is that OK? Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hooray! Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've looked throughRed Hats contribs and the dates and I think it's pretty obvious that he used this map for [File:British Decolonisation in Africa.png]. Its the one he downloaded when he was making these maps and the details are the same. Ive added the details to the image. Is that OK? Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh bother. It's pretty unsatisfactory that an editor can in good faith do all this work on a blank map from commons and then it turns out to be unacceptable. What if I recreated the map on acceptable blank? Would that do? Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking at it again to see how I could go about creating another one when I realised I'd got the wrong year in Red Hats contribs. I was looking in 2008 when it was created in 2009. The blank map he downloaded and used in 2009 (when he created this africa map) was the same one as he used for the BE map, ie File:BlankMap-World3.svg. I would surmise from that that he used a section of that blank map to create the africa map. Is this now OK? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The uploader has added an ID code. Good to go? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• The person who emailed me once has never responded again; I am giving up hope for help from him... You may recall there are paintings in the Andrade book. Can we use them, even without any response from CUP? And how can we know if they are watermarked? Tks. • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • We kickemus buttus! I'll "try try see" (literal translation of Chinese expression). • Ling.Nut (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    • If I upload 'em, can you tag 'em? I want to finish this... I uploaded two (File:Taiwanese aborigines deerhunt2.png & File:Taiwanese aboriginese deerhunt1.png; 2 is a crop of 1 but I think I don't need it...). Would you go far above and beyond the call of duty, and check them for me....? Tks! • Ling.Nut (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I know this has been an inconvenience to you. I know I also griped and complained about the systemic bias due to language issues (though I grumped, I still believe it was well within the realm of socially acceptable behavior, though EC quite obviously disagrees). I sincerely appreciate your help. You have done a lot to help the Taiwanese aborigines article. • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I've tracked down the blanks for that last map. He copied an older version onto a newer blank. I'm pretty sure I found the blank for the older version too. Another map showing the antartic was used as well but that has been attributed. The links are on the FAR page. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm considering replacing the picture of one of the ships launching with this image: [20] on the website that you had mentioned. I plan to upload it under a NFU rationale as a derivative work. I think that this will significantly improve the article and better meet NFCC 8 as it shows how the ship was laid out. Do you forsee any issues with this plan?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd overlooked the image that you'd suggested. Either one would work, although I expect that they have the same issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All I Want for Christmas Is You/archive1 and give a second opinion on the non-free media use? Thanks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I think I addressed your concerns. Anyway, left you comments as well. please check back when you can :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Its alright, I appreciate you getting back to me. I'll re-nominate in 2 weeks and hopefully you can be part of it again!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

After The Story of Miss Moppet was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.

Truthkeeper88, with help from Ruhrfisch, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet#Post-FAC cleanup review comments on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

PS The original images were almost all deleted per WP:BAN, but I uploaded them again with the same licenses etc as the versions you checked. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI I replaced the problematic pic on the Mount Fee article awhile back. I will eventually try to fix the other problems mentioned in the FAC. Volcanoguy 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

For your information, the article is now at FAC. I have reluctantly deleted the "elderly Waugh" non-free image, as the fair use rationale may not withstand a determined assault. I have retained the infobox image on the basis of the arguments you presented at peer review, and hope that this will be accepted. If that has to go too, there is no prospect of any other portrait image being available, which will leave the article looking oddly bereft without a lead image. FAC can be wearing... Brianboulton (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia recommended at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009/archive1 that I ask you or Elcobbola for a second opinion on the images in the article in question, so I'm asking both of you. If you're not too busy, could you please look into this?
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If File:Jim Tedisco with Michael Steele.jpg was reduced in size, would it be acceptable?
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, an editor commented me at one FAC to ask you (or another user, who would be not active) if the image File:Flickr - gillyberlin - Beyonce I am... Tour 2009 Live in Berlin (14).jpg could be checked for freedom of panorama. According to him: "[it] is basically a far away image of the stage, where it is impossible to make out what is exactly happening. It is only looking at the backdrop of the performance that one can make out Bey[oncé]". The image was taken in Berlin, Germany, where according to commons it is OK (for permanently objects). It would be nice if you anwser my question (which is "The image is OK or not for FOP, or could fall into copyvio?") Thank you so much. Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 05:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I'll take it with one of them (or both) later. Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 07:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you get the chance, can you have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norwich Market/archive1 and see if the image concern FN has raised is legitimate? Per my comments there, to me it looks like one of his generic "I don't like it" serial-opposes—the offending image is the architectural plan for a scheme which was never built, so it's obviously unreplaceable by a free-use photo, and there's a lengthy section explaining the controversy when the design was proposed, and the reasons for its rejection, which to my mind needs an illustration of what was proposed so readers can compare it with the (free-use) images of what was actually built. However, it's possible that I've misread image policy and this genuinely doesn't meet NFCC. – iridescent 15:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I've hit your main concerns. Thanks again for the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Do what you will... I'll try and get to it tonight or tomorrow after the revelry... have a good holiday and safe travels. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've handled all of your concerns; anything left? Thanks, ResMar 16:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I get an opinion on Canadian FoP from you, Thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang - If you have some extra time, would you mind conducting a few image reviews at FAR? The ones that need it the most are:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/King Vulture/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Economy of India/archive2
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Belgium/archive3
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rebecca Helferich Clarke/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Japan/archive1

Thank you very much if you have a time/interest. If not, no big deal. Dana boomer (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

One more-- this one should be salvageable, if you have time to spend in there:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia/archive3. Thanks for all you do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 19, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 19, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch ^{۩ ۞} 19:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Me again :) Would you have time for a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tales of Monkey Island/archive1? Thanks again for all you do. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Hi, can you take a look at the license of the CD cover Fasach Nua (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have the time, could you please check over Nirvana (band) (review page at WP:Featured article review/Nirvana (band)/archive1)? It looks to be headed for a save, and could use an image review prior to close. Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang, and thanks for the image review on Nirvana. Wesley has replied to your comment with a question, and it would be much appreciated if you could give your view on the subject. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I have made edits to the article which I hope alleviate your concerns. Thanks! WesleyDodds (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a notice that I revised the fair use rationales again for the other pages, trying to make them more specific to each article. As I mentioned before, I'm not too familiar with fair use procedures (I primarily stick to writing and referencing prose), so hopefully they're more in line now. Thanks for your feedback. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just sent Rinaldo to FAC, with an eye on the tercentenary of its premiere, on 24 February. Apart from the template image in the lead, there are only four images in the article, and I'm pretty certain that they are all in the public domain, though the licencing may be off in some cases. Would you mind looking at them? I usually request this during the PR, but that had to be a bit hasty because of the time deadline. If the Poussin painting is questionable, there are some alternatives listed on the article's talkpage. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Re above, the images have been checked out at the FAC, so no worries. However, User: Ruhrfisch has drawn my attention to Lascia ch’io pianga and bilingual libretto from this website. He wondered if these mught be PD in the USA and therefore usable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So that you know, it will be TFA on the 18th. I know you have a personal interest in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 5, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 5, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 29, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 29, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! I happened across that article just yesterday and enjoyed the read. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I can make time! Looking forward to it! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Saw your post on David's page. Is it a battleship? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I have responded here. Could you please clarify whether all concerns been adequately addressed? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and follow up! Further responses on the FARC page. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You made a comment at the Headley FAC about the images. My understanding is that any Australian image taken before 1 Jan 1946 would be PD-US because of the URAA. Am I correct in thinking that the images in this article would all therefore be OK? And on a similar topic, any Australian photos taken after 1946 but before 1955 would be PD-Australia but NOT PD-US and therefore would be unacceptable in an article? (I'm thinking of images in Len Hutton which are all post 1946). Thanks for your help! --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the images; I've removed the images from Headley for the moment as I'm unlikely to find the required information and I do not know enough about NFC to feel comfortable dabbling in that area! This is why I stay well out of image related issues and you have my enormous respect for understanding it so well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added some new images to the Headley article which I think are OK, and I'd appreciate it if you could have a look. I've also added a fair use image and again, I'd appreciate expert eyes to see if a) it is OK to use and b) I've done it properly as I've never done one of these before. Thanks! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind doing an image check on the Mercury dime FAC? I do not expect any problems (mostly straightforward pre-1923 publication) but I've been surprised before.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've axed that image. Should be all clear now. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, looks like it should pass. I've nommed Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Can you opine on the images there? I'm quite proud of some of them!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review. I believe I've amended all the concerns you had save one (I've left a comment on the FAC page.) Thanks again, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang, I have noticed that Arsonal has not been online in a week and am considering taking over the FA nomination for Chinese Indonesians at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chinese Indonesians/archive1. However, I wanted to ask a) would this be against Wikiquette? and b) are there any more major issues aside from images? Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. I will see if Arsonal comes back within the next month and if not I will try to deal with the images. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you look at this FAC? There are only two images. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any chance you could do an image review of George Hirst, at FAC here? If you haven't the time or inclination, it's not a problem and feel free to tell me to go away! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang. Your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Middlesex (novel)/archive2 about the prose and structure of the article have been very helpful. Additionally, I am grateful for your assistance when I was having trouble with the references. I have nominated Middlesex (novel) for featured article consideration at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middlesex (novel)/archive1, where I hope you can review the article against the FA criteria. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I said in the FAC I had done everything you asked. I still have to crop that image from Bobby. I'll do it in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Jappalang, thank you for this creative, catchy advertisement for the Middlesex FAC. :) Cunard (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've added file:joyce1.png to the article while the FAC is still pending. Could you amend your image review?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Promoted, so never mind. Could you perchance please take a look at Indian Head gold pieces and give the FAC an image review? I don't think there's anything problematical in there, mostly self taken photos of coins. and other clear cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've resolved, hopefully, the image issues you raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2. Please take a look. Prioryman (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia is asking on the FAC page whether your issues are now resolved. Could you please respond there? Prioryman (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I just replied to your latest. The logo issues are resolved, leaving just the postcard outstanding - grateful if you could answer my query so that we can close out this FAC. Prioryman (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the fishermen at FAC. I don't think there are any issues outstanding from the images (one of which you played a big part in locating), but maybe you'd check them out - and, of course, highlight other issues that may need looking at. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jappalang. User:Cassianto a recent recruit to our ranks encouraged by User:Ssilvers and me has an article on Stanley Holloway up for FAC. The authorities want an image review, and I wonder if I can persuade you to employ your expertise thus? Tim riley (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, firstly sorry for all the frustrations from a week ago which have now happily been resolved. I didn't realise how tough it was going to be and my frustrations boiled over a little bit. Your image review on SH is very much appreciated and having studied WP:IMAGES and browsed commons, I now fully understand the violations that I unwittingly made. Your review has also taught me an awful lot. Anyway, how are the images going now? Are there anymore issues that need correcting? Thanks again for your work and I wish you a happy and peaceful new year. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please weigh in on the PD status of some images appearing in the FAC Mandell Creighton. The images were all taken between 1862 and 1893. They have been scanned from the book: Covert, James Thayne (1 November 2000), A Victorian marriage: Mandell and Louise Creighton, Hambledon and London Ltd., ISBN 978-1-85285-260-3. As such, they qualify for the EU tag, "PD-old-70," but according to Brian Boulton, they still need a US public domain tag (see Brian's remarks here). In Covert's book, the photographs have been credited to Christian (Kisty) Creighton, wife of a grandson of Mandell Creighton. That seems to suggest that they were not published elsewhere before they were published in the book. (Neither Mandell Creighton nor any member of his immediate family (wife and children) survive.) Please advise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Since I have found the Louise Creighton volumes, Louise Creighton (1904), Life and letters of Mandell Creighton, volume 1, Longmans, Green, Creighton, Louise (1904), Life and letters of Mandell Creighton, volume 2, Longmans, Green, in which some of the pictures appear, especially the first two ones, and since I don't want to clutter up the FAC review page with my less-than-expert image ramblings, I am moving the nitty-gritty image discussion to the Talk:Mandell Creighton page. If you could advise me their, it would be great. Thanks so much for your help. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)