Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Huia/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:57, 16 September 2010 [1].

Huia

edit

Huia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Kotare (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because; I feel that all areas of knowledge on the Huia are now covered comprehensively by the article's content. I have personally done much research and written the majority of the article and in doing so I have searched for and found all key reference works on the bird that I am aware of. Key examples include;

1. Kerry Jayne-Wilson, "Flight of the Huia; Ecology and Conservation of New Zealand's frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals", Canterbury University Press, 2004

2.Higgins, Peter Jeffrey; Peter, John M; Cowling, SJ, eds (2006). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 7: Boatbill to Starlings, Part A: Boatbill to Larks. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195539967.

3.Trevor H. Worthy and Richard N. Holdaway, "The Lost World of the Moa;Prehistoric life in New Zealand", Canterbury University Press, 2002

4.Morris, Rod; Smith, Hal (1995). Wild South: Saving New Zealand's Endangered Birds (2nd ed.). New Zealand: Random House.

5.Barrie, Heather; Robertson, Hugh (2005). The Field guide to the Birds of New Zealand (Revised Edition). Viking. ISBN 978-0143020400.

6.Szabo, Michael (October–December 1993). "Huia; The sacred Bird". New Zealand Geographic (20).

This is a New Zealand bird and thus, New Zealand will have a higher concentration of books on the subject because it's a local one. I live in Wellington and have done extensive research from here, both at libraries and also on the net. The coverage is good and in addition I think the article looks good visually and has some excellent illustrations. I can honestly say, from combing through key sources of information on the species above that this article is apporaching total saturation in terms of what is written there about the bird compared to what is known about the bird in general. It is very well referenced, plenty of inline citations in there, with over 34 seperate sources used. It's stable, reasonably well written and, in my opinion, of sufficient length to adequately cover the subject matter without being verbose. Kotare (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The dead link is still there.
  • I haven't gone through the entire article yet, but I think some work needs to be done on the prose. The sentences seem a little long and rambling at times—they need to be more concise. I've made some minor changes and may try some more major rewritings. A few other things:
  • A minor point, but I doubt Heteralocha was taken directly from Greek; more likely, it was a newly coined word that combines two Greek words. And why are the other synonyms listed in the taxobox not mentioned in the text?
  • There are various other minor style problems, which I corrected in part of the article. Ucucha 14:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the Greek name problem I think. Kotare might need to address the synonym issue Kahuroa (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have expanded the Taxonomy and etymology section to cover the Greek names and explain the origin of the synonyms. Please have a look at the section to see if it works okay. Kahuroa (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now replaced with link to Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, a reliable source. Kahuroa (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have replaced this site with NZ Post. Kahuroa (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a suggestion, but are all the external links really adding anything additional to the article? There seems to be quite a number, so culling may be in order if they are not adding much.
Fair call, I have pruned the external links now. Kahuroa (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further sources comments
    • Many of your references are to books, e.g. 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 etc., yet only the Higgins book is listed in the bibliography. These other books all have multiple citations, so why should they not be treated in the same way as the Higgins book?
Added remainder of books using cite book template to Bibliography Kahuroa (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, I see that these book references carry no page numbers (though Higgins does). Citations to whole books are difficult to verify unless the books are only a few pages long. Why can't page references be given?
At the risk of sounding facetious, books often have things called indexes, which one uses to find particular topics of interest in larger books. These are particularly common in non-fiction books. Presuming one has gone to the effort of locating a library that has the book, negotiated the Dewey Decimal system to find the book of interest and located said book from the shelves, I find it difficult to believe that locating the index would be a considerable difficulty. Moreover you seldom find book numbers in journal articles, which suggests that not putting them in is considered acceptable. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't sound so much "faecitious" as pissed off, negative and brusque - you sure you're not having a bad day?; "These are particularly common in non-fiction books", there's no call for mockery! Your problem, not mine dude.I haven't had nearly the experience on wikipedia that you have and this is why I didn't do the page number thing initially - because much of that research was done 2 years ago when I wasn't even aware of the issue/ I was still learning. I wasn't sure how to do it this year but I have kept details so it should be easy to do. What's you point about the index though (?). I had actually wondered about the page numbers.. as Higgins does set a precedent. This was the one big thing I thought that, in all likelihood, still needed to be worked on - but I wasn't sure- so the feedback is good but you didn't present it in a very civil way. I'll work on it.Kotare (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest, Kotare, that you ignore the above unhelpful intervention and follows your own instincts on this issue. It should be obvious to anyone why a book index does not substitute for page numbers; the point is not even worth debating. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Kotare, the comment was directed at Brian, not you. It was an explanation of why you wouldn't need them, and why I assumed you might not have included them. I'm opposed to making them mandatory, because, as I've said, it strikes me as ludicrous that someone who has gone to the trouble of locating a book couldn't handle one and because they aren't required in journal articles, which I consider the gold standard of respectability. So apologies, but I stand by my point And Brian, it is neither obvious nor not worth debating. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what this is about, as I can't see page numbers for Higgins. I assume that what is being asked for is the shortened footnote system. If that's so, I'd be happy to work my way through the article and implement this, so that somebody else can just drop in the page numbers. Schwede66 08:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, thanks Schwede - Kotare is trying to track down page numbers if I recall correctly 09:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Consistency required over formats of retrieval dates.
Think these are fixed now.Kahuroa (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 25 should be properly formatted as a citation.
Edited some of the references for minor problems - but I'm not sure which one you mean since the numbers have changed. Kahuroa (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Ah, lovely to see. One of the strangest and most lovely (former) New Zealand birds. Pity there are records of my great-grandfather's comments on its tastiness :(

  • Prose refinement in the lead would be good. eg.:
  • "The second major causal factor in the extinction of the Huia was the widespread and more or less total deforestation of the lowlands of the North Island by newly arrived European settlers that was occurring in this period to create pasture for agriculture." Both "more or less" and "that was occurring in this period" feel unnecessary.
  • In the two following sentences, it reads awkwardly to have "It is further thought very likely" and "has further been suggested" in successive sentences.
I've modified the lead. I will also note: are the inline citations in the lead necessary? The material appears well-discussed and well-cited in the body, so these could be removed. Iridia (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations in lead are now removed Kahuroa (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another, less obvious aspect of the Huia's sexual dimorphism was the size difference between the sexes." Perhaps add 'minor size difference'? I found myself comparing numbers to get the right mental picture. added it.
  • Its range appears to have contracted following Māori settlement." in c. 1250 AD, should be mentioned. added it. Iridia (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really no fossil remains from over Honeycomb Hill in the Kahurangi? Huh. I guess it didn't like the wet winters.
  • second para, Feeding and ecology: alter some of the 'It' to Huia; there's potential confusion between the Huia and Kaka there. rewrote it.
  • The mention of the call in Social behaviour first para should probably be under Voice. moved it.
Overall, very comprehensive and interesting. Iridia (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE: The second major causal factor in the extinction of the Huia was the widespread and more or less total deforestation of the lowlands of the North Island by newly arrived European settlers that was occurring in this period to create pasture for agriculture. I have made it: The second major cause of the extinction of the Huia was the widespread deforestation of the lowlands of the North Island by European settlers to create pasture for agriculture. --- oops I forgot to sign this a couple of days or so ago Kahuroa (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tightened up the prose of the lead. Iridia (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going through and tightening up the prose section by section. Copyedit now complete.
  • It would be good to have a photo of a huhu grub. Anyone NZ-side got a rotting log they can give a kick? ;) Iridia (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of those strange gaps in the Commons collection!! Thanks for your work on the prose too.Kahuroa (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :) I've now finished going through and copyediting the prose. Iridia (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would this help? Schwede66 08:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does look helpful - I could make a version showing the last frame where the Kākā has the wee beastie in its beak Kahuroa (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to commons as File:KakaFeedingOnHuhuGrub.jpg - will it work? Bit too blurry?? There are also a couple of good ones on Flickr and I have approached the authors to see if they will release them to Wikipedia. Fingers crossed Kahuroa (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have now sourced File:Huhu grubs.jpg from Flickr and added to the article. Thanks for the idea Iridia!! Kahuroa (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I would say that the kahikatea fruit image could come back in that section as well, just put them one above the other. It looks a little out of place down in Extinction. Iridia (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave that to Kotare, but you are probably right Kahuroa (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done now Kahuroa (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with a stamp image from 1898 - I think there are no copyright issues with that Kahuroa (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • prose is a bit lax, I've listed a few examples below, but could do with a careful copyedit. Examople two, well documented factors. Why the comma?
  • It was considered a specialist predator seems quite a list of prey for a specialist. How much of its diet was the nocturnal larvae?
I have adjusted the wording of that section according to Hanzab source and added sentence from same source about main foraging behaviour. It's probably unknown how much of its diet was the nocturnal larvae: Hanzab 7a:1015 says under Food: "No detailed studies". I also took out a sentence about Kaka eating insect larvae - seemed a bit superfluous and intrusive here. Kahuroa (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coraciacarus muellermotzfeldi was described from dried corpses found in the feathers of a Huia skin held by a European museum... it is thought that it might be the result of horizontal transfer from one of the two native, migratory species of Cuckoo Why can't the old skin have been contaminated by the louse in its years in storage?
  • The Huia is one of New Zealand's best known extinct birds[8] on account of this feature — I know what you mean, but there are lots of words since the bill was mentioned last
  • Māori What's the justification for using the Maori, rather than the English, spelling (there's no macron in English)? This is en-wiki, so standard English spelling should be used. Welsh is in a similar position to Maori, an old indigenous language displaced by English. The en-wiki article is at welsh language, not Cymraeg. The list of birds of Wales has Red Kite, not barcud coch. It's difficult to see why Maori vocabulary and spelling should be given precedence on en-wiki, whilst other indigenous languages like Welsh, Breton and Basque have their articles written in standard English
  • ''literally translates there's not much scope for a loose translation when there's only one word, I'd lose the literally
removed (I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadleaf-Podocarp I don't understand. Should this be broadleaf Podocarp
No - broadleaf = angiosperm (usually deciduous in England), and podocarp = podocarpus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it shouldn't be a link to this instead? Not sure a broad 'angiosperm' is useful here...there doesn't seem to be a proper article on NZ broadleaf-podocarp forest. Iridia (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. that is indeed a better link and duly linked to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • mataī, Rimu, Kahikatea, Northern Rātā, Maire, Hinau, Totara, Rewarewa, Mahoe, and Taraire Some at least of these have English names, eg Matai is Black Pine, and all have a binomial. I am at a loss to understand why you have used the least accessible, non-English and non-binomial names for these plants, and have spelt them using non-English diacritics.
I am in the process of bringing out the scientific names - I will blue up redlinks soon Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note since the NZ-resident authors may be a little occupied just now: use of the macron is standard modern NZ English and is used on NZ Wikipedia articles - this discussion has been had frequently in the past. The plant names used are the most common ones in use in NZ English, which contains many words that non-NZ English users might consider unfamiliar (for example, the Māori names are in use for most plants; I haven't heard anyone call mataī "black pine" except in books from the 1950s). Iridia (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re the spelling of Māori and Māori words, if I might interject here, in New Zealand articles the macron is standard - are you suggesting we change hundreds of articles? And re the names of trees, in New Zealand English, the Māori names are nowadays used much more than the so-called English versions which began dying out in the early 20th century, reflecting a strong trend in New Zealand English towards using Māori names for native plants and animals. No one - at least no one I know - calls Mataī "Black Pine" anymore - I find nothing unusual here in using Māori names for trees - it merely reflects for the most part the usage of the sources, scientific, botanical and otherwise, in New Zealand botanic sources. New Zealand English is quite heavily influenced by Māori, something perhaps not appreciated elsewhere, and more to the point the use of macrons is an accepted policy of the New Zealand Wikiproject and has been thrashed out there long ago. Kahuroa (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, I have never heard anyone call Matai "Black Pine" and the species comes up in conversation quite a lot because it was used so widely for flooring in colonial times, I talked about it with a carpenter I was working with yesterday. Apart from anything else, you'll find that a lot of maori words sound better than their english equivalents too, which is partly why some of these english equivalents never caught on.Kotare (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what's happened to keep Kotare from editing, but I have made a couple of changes in the meantime. The other points raised about the prose style seem valid and I may be able to look at those as well, but Kotare is the one for some of content related points Kahuroa (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, life has been a bit complex for me lately but I'm back now. Let's do this!Kotare (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok guys, what I am going to start working on now is going through all those books I grabbed and putting in page numbers so that the references section is consistent, I put in most of that info from these sources, so it will be easier for me to rectify the problem. I will need a few days to work on it but it should be fairly straightforward. Kotare (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (moral or otherwise) as WP:Birds member and part time contributor to this article over the years, it's as comprehensive as it can possibly be and I gave it a going-over prose-wise. Some other folks might see some prose issues here and there but I see no deal-breakers outstanding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am happy to accept the assurance that the macron version of Maori is standard NZ English, and therefore conforms with en-wiki guidelines. the addition of binomials (which is where the articles actually reside) makes the list of trees less parochial, and the minor points have been addressed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Casliber I also Support (moral or otherwise) as WP:Birds member and part-time contributor to this article over the years. I think there are only a couple of points to be addressed: page numbers for book sources and also the question about the feather louse. I understand Kotare is trying to resolve both of these, and that might take a few days yet. Kahuroa (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "Australian ornithologist John Gould"—our article on him calls him English
Maybe easier to just drop both words "Australian ornithologist" then - as he also described some mammals. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know the relationships among the three NZ wattlebirds (i.e., which two are most closely related)?
Added molecular study which is partly inconclusive. There is a morphological suggestion Kokako is most divergent and ill hunt ref. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hanzab 7a p963 might be what you need Cas... some suggestion of cranial feature differences in Kokako. Also that Oliver combined Huia and Saddleback in Philesturnidae but Kokako in Callaeadidae etc. I can't get into editing at the moment, maybe tonight Kahuroa (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a closer read of Hanzab 7A's section on the Callaeadidae, I think with Casliber's addition about the inconclusive molecular study, there is nothing useful I can add. Hanzab doesn't commit itself on the internal relationships, so I think we are waiting until someone comes up with another molecular study that produces a clearer result Kahuroa (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from Buller in "Extinction" lacks a source.
  • "a flock of 100–150 birds was reported at the summit of the Akatarawa-Waikane track in 1905; they were still "fairly plentiful" in the upper reaches of the Rangitikei River in 1906 – and yet, the last confirmed sighting came just one year later."—this piece should be cited, especially as it has a direct quotation. Fixed - using HANZAB Huia section photocopy I have on me at my desk atm. Kotare (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Szabo (1993) (cited many times, currently ref. 17) a high-quality reliable source?

Ucucha 18:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick answer since Kotare is the one who added the references from Szabo, but New Zealand Geographic magazine is a high-quality source in my humble opinion - they are backed by the New Zealand Geographic Trust and support researchers etc. Kahuroa (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The New Zealand Geographic is a pretty solid magazine in terms of reliability and respectability. To be fair though, I think wikipedians in New Zealand are better placed to judge how scholarly this source is - say there was an article on a japanese bird species that used the a "Japan Geographic" (I'm just making up an example) article as a ref. Who are people in the US or NZ to say "it's not a very scholarly source"? - we would probably have never heard of it; the locals know the publication. Just because it's a magazine doesn't mean it's not scholarly - the author is an expert in conservation biology. Do you want me to get in touch with Michael Szabo? Because he used to be the editor for Forest and Bird magazine, so I can track him down through them. I dunno..what's going to qualify as a satisfactory response? Talking to the author seems fairly objective..Kotare (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NZ Geog is robust and reliable but not scholarly and not suitable as a ref for WP articles. The many refs to the NZ Geog article should be able to found in better publications. The NZ Geog article is a good candidate for the Further reading section. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's not written for a scholarly audience. But it is generally reliable, and I don't see a problem with using it as a source for Wikipedia articles. It is certainly better than many newspaper articles. Recent articles in refereed journals would generally be better again, if they can be found. --Avenue (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kahuroa and Avenue that NZ Geographic is a reliable source and quite suitable as a source for this article. Szabo's background with Forest & Bird gives him extra authority on top of the magazine's.-gadfium 20:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At FAC, the criterion refers to "high quality reliable sources", not just reliable sources, so we need to bear that in mind when assessing the suitability of material. Obviously locals will have local knowledge about sources, but the sorts of things involved in establishing high quality are to some extent universal. They are things like having a good reputation as a publishing house (in the case of books and magazines), having editorial boards, refereeing or peer review processes for content, being respected industry publications evidenced by being cited amongst peers, in other source etc. There's a wide range of such factors to consider. Another factor is the reputation of the author. Gadfium indicates that this author has a background in Forest & Bird, which appears to be an environmental conservation organisation (New Zealand's most significant and oldest, I think). It also appears to be the name of a journal that they publish, but as far as I can tell, it isn't peer reviewed either. In all, the magazine New Zealand Geographic would appear to meet WP:RS, but I'm not sure about "high quality" RS. As an author, Michael Szabo might have a stronger claim to being an author with a sufficient reputation to allow us to consider his piece high quality. I'm going to AGF with gadfium and say that, for me, this article qualifies, particularly now that other referees sources have been used to cover claims that were initially only supported with the Szabo ref. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My only concern is that last one raised by Ucucha: whether Szabo meets the standard of being a high quality reliable source. I would like to see either a satisfactory response to this query or the swapping out of that reference where possible, replacing it with a more scholarly source that covers the same content. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::I think there would be any doubt among NZers that NZ Geographic is a high quality reliable source. Not sure how we prove that to you. Are there any particular references where you perhaps think a source like Hanzab, say, is needed as corroboration for Szabo? I mean, is there anything contentious or out of the ordinary that we have relied on Szabo for? Kahuroa (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given Alan Liefting's comments above it looks like we have relied a bit too much on Szabo and the NZ Geo. I will take a look at the refs and see what can be replaced from Hanzab and the like. I may not have time to do much before the weekend but I don't see any major problems in sorting it out. Kahuroa (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree; I have looked through all the places we've cited Szabo's article and I don't see them as necessarily problematic. In many cases it is not the only source given. The main topic where we seem to rely heavily on it alone is for Maori practices regarding the Huia. That's not my area of expertise at all, and I don't have a good feeling for Szabo's reliability versus other sources such as Best. --Avenue (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Avenue. Looks like the consensus is going towards NZGeo being okay. I will go through the refs but will hold off on wholesale removal until the reviewers who raised the query get back to us. I will have a look at the Maori practices, there may be other sources Kahuroa (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through and reduced the dependence on Szabo considerably by finding HANZAB equivalents to back up or occasionally replace many of the Szabo refs. There are some relating to social/legal practices of the time and to Maori practices, but I don't think there is much if anything left about the bird itself that is Szabo-only. There are a couple where Szabo is used as a source to describe Buller's activities, which seems a bit indirect. All those can also be looked at if the reviewers think we should. Kahuroa (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think that helps. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues:

  • File:Deforestation NZ Levin early 20th Century.jpg: 100-year-old photographs could still be copyrighted. If a photographer took a photograph in 1907 and only published it in the US in 1925 while following all copyright procedures, that photo is copyrighted to him or her until 2021 (1925 + 95 + 1). New Zealand abides by the 70-year 50-year pma rule and if the photographer who took the photo in 1907 lived till 1960, his works are copyrighted in New Zealand until 2011 (1960 + 50 + 1). On what basis are these photos "Out of Copyright worldwide"? Removed from article.
  • Jappalang can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the first step in the case of these photos is to establish whether a photographer is named anywhere (such as the source document). If the photographer cannot be identified, it is an anonymous work, and under New Zealand copyright law is out of copyright (being pre-1960). If the photographer can be identified, then the question is: did the photographer die before 1960 or not? But I'm sure Jappalang or Elcobbola will correct me if I've misunderstood those first steps. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I have removed this from the article - not worth arguing about at length, Huia can stand to go without it. Kahuroa (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Heteralocha acutirostris distribution.png: www.aquarius.geomar.de does not seem to be an "online mapping website". It seems more like a German aquatic research institute. Where does it provide online mapping that are either appropriate for the purposes of Wikipedia and Commons (i.e. freely available for commercial and derivative purposes)? Acceptable base map used.
That site has changed and I can't find the original link which did provide an online mapping service appropriate for the purposes of Wikipedia and Commons (i.e. freely available for commercial and derivative purposes). No matter, I can just recreate have just recreated the file on a different base: File:New Zealand location map transparent.svg. Kahuroa (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:New Zealand location map transparent.svg is good. NordNordWest has prepared his maps well (created from data that cannot be copyrighted and properly sourced). Jappalang (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:TukukinoLindauer.jpg: Gottfried Lindauer died in 1926; the copyright of his works are managed by his heirs (if any) for 70 years thereafter. A photograph of this portrait was published in Maori Paintings in 1965; thus, I believe the publishers have the permission of Lindauer's heirs to do so. According to http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm (Works Published Abroad Before 1978), this derivative would be granted US copyright for 95 years after publication (1965 + 95 + 1) because it is not in New Zealand's public domain before 1996 (out of NZ copyright in 1926 + 70 + 1 = 1997). Error: File:TukukinoLindauer.jpg is public domain in NZ and US because it was in NZ public domain in 1977.
Are you suggesting that a two-dimensional photo published in 1965 prevents the use of all other copies of the original?? Kahuroa (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is what Jappalang intended: I expect he meant that the representation of the painting that appears in that book is in copyright, though I'll let J confirm that. There may be a couple of different ways to resolve this. The work is owned and exhibited online by the Auckland Art Gallery here. I don't see any obvious reason why this image of the work, which is definitely published more recently than either 1978 or, for that matter, 1996, would be in copyright. Second, I don't know whether New Zealand has freedom of panorama, but if so, that may apply depending on the status of the work in the public collection (ie. whether it is on long-term display). Just some suggestions. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I have removed this from the article - not worth arguing about at length, Huia can stand to go without it. It was painted over 130 years ago though Kahuroa (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to apologise; I made a mistake assuming the duration of copyright in New Zealand was 70 years pma (based on the PD-old templates that were asserted). It is 50 years.[2] As such, it was in New Zealand public domain in 1977 and therefore in US as well. The article can safely reuse this painting.
Thanks for that, I will put the painting back in Kahuroa (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my initial assertions. I believe the photograph constitutes publishing of the work concerned; hence, yes, that photograph of a work unpublished until 1965 established a copyright claim in the US (which viewed pre-1978 copyright as starting from publishing instead of death of author). Jappalang (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the case was that a two-dimensional (photo) of an artwork was not regarded as a new work for copyright purposes unless new content had been added in some way. Bu these things can get very complex, appreciate your help and comments Jappalang. Kahuroa (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PD-Art is a counter to copyright claims for photographs of a public domain painting. In this case, my belief is that the authorised publishing of a copyrighted painting (the copyright was still in force in 1965) in a book starts a US copyright claim. Quite a different matter in my opinion. Jappalang (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These issues should be addressed and resolved before any promotion to FA status. Jappalang (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images are okay. Jappalang (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Huia/archive1&oldid=1078801209"