Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Colditz Castle/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Colditz Castle

Partial Self-nom: A Maximum security Nazi POW camp (Oflag IVc) for Allied officers during WW2, it has a history going back to 1046! I've put a ton of effort into this over the past week and think its probably at FA status now. Yes the article does have a ton of redlinks, however most of them are biographical articles on people from 11th to 16th Century, or WW2 veterans that havent been created yet. I say partial self nom because the following was left on its talk page by 68.77.162.199 on 17 Mar 2005: "I think this is a fascinating article, featured article material." Let me know where to go folks.  ALKIVAR™ 11:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Great article Waerth 01:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Aw, this awesome article needs more Support - KingTT 21:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• support - I keep coming back to this article and noticing how much it's been improving. This time I was really surprised; it's really becoming something. I can't really comment on its accuracy or comprehensiveness, thats for someone else to check out, but just as a reader I think it's very well written and fully answers all of my questions. It's also one of those "fun" articles that makes Wikipedia more attractive and interesting. --Clngre 22:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A fascinating and comprehensive article, although the redlinks prompt me to wonder whether articles on some of these people will ever be written: perhaps they ought to be removed? However, redlinks are not a reason to object to featuring. Dbiv 12:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support, a really interesting and enjoyable read. Disclosure: I've done superficial copy-editing. Bishonen | Talk 15:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some images of dubious copyright status called "fair use", some with apparently no more justification than the "it's fair use if we really want to use it" theory. Two listed on PUI. —Steven G. Johnson 20:34, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

  You dont really seem to understand how "Fair Use" works. These images are 1) used for illustrative purpose to a subject of which they relate to. 2) this is a non profit educational use. 3) credit is established and given for source. As far as wikipedia is concerned this is a legitimate fair use. From fair use:

  In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

  you can clearly see this fits those guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ 21:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In your way of thinking, is there any image on the web that would not be fair use in Wikipedia? If your answer is "no", then you need to think again — fair use is a very narrow exception to copyright law. Points 3 and 4, in particular, mean that in general you can only use small snippets of a larger work (and even then maybe not if the snippet by itself has commmercial value to the author) not just any random image you swiped from someone's web site (e.g. Image:The Rennaisance Portal.jpg). —Steven G. Johnson 03:56, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm following Wikipedia's established Fair Use guidelines, which it clearly fits. However since your objection still stands to ruin the hopes of this quite good article, I have since commented them out. Is this enough to remove your objection?  ALKIVAR™ 13:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support; I had a great time reading this article, great work! -- Shauri 07:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)