HNoMS Kjell was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
I have just modified 2 external links on HNoMS Kjell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Sort of what I'm getting at is, is that article correct? One generally doesn't count torpedo boats built in the 1880s and 1910s (the latter of which displaced twice that of the earlier vessels) as the same class. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships does not count them as such (in fact, Conway's refers to her as part of the three-ship Teist class, along with Skarv), so I'm wondering what the sources for that grouping are. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a dubious tag on the boat's namesake - can you address that?
I just removed the whole sentence because there were no sources in the article to confirm this.
www.german-navy.de is not a reliable source - I don't read Norwegian, so I can't evaluate those online sources, but I'd like to see justification that they meet the criteria.
As far as I understand copyright law, we need to be able to prove that the photo was published without crediting the author - the claim that "hey, I found this old photo online and don't know the author" is not the same, and it wouldn't exactly hold up in court (which is something we need to be concerned about - there have been successful lawsuits against re-users of Wikimedia content that was incorrectly labeled as public domain - granted, there likely isn't much chance of that in cases like this, but we still need to follow policy). Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Parsecboy, on both files it says "Under the former photo law, protection ended 25 years after creation, provided that more than 15 years had passed since the photographer's death or the photographer is unknown. The image is in the public domain if this older term already had expired as of 29 June 1995." That seems to be in the public domain to me. L293D (☎ • ✎)14:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the critical piece we're missing is when did the photographer die? Generally, anonymous exceptions to copyright law require the photograph to have been originally published with no credit - you and me not knowing a hundred years later is not the same thing. Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The images will have to go unless we can demonstrate that they're free to use. I had a look through history.navy.mil, as they have a fairly substantial photo archive, but there was nothing I could find on Kjell, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a bit stuck here - I don't have Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships so I can't check the class of the boat, I don't read Norwegian so I can't check the quality of the sources, and I guess the images have copyright problems, so I guess you can fail it. Thanks for taking the time to do the review. L293D (☎ • ✎)12:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot me an email and I can forward you scans of the relevant pages from Conway's (though I won't have access to my e-version until tonight at the earliest), and we can go from there. I'd rather we put in the effort to get the article to GA if you're at all interested - HNoMS Mjølner (1868) looks awful lonely ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing since I haven't heard anything, you don't have an interest in pursuing the article. I'll go ahead and fail the review for now. Let me know if you'd like help with sources in the future. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
