474:
is there any question over copyright. If the Navy ever questioned who held the copyright in this instance, then either they or a court of law would have to satisfactory resolve the evidential hole. That aside, we still need to come to some sort of conclusion. The rule is that the artistic work must be made pursuant to the terms of the contract between employee and employer. I believe the Navy employee identified was not an official photographer or anything of that sort, but he also has an obligation to follow the appropriate direction of higher officers and to do such tasks as might be necessary for the running of the ship (in general terms). It's in this role that most of our government employee works appear to have come into being. In those circumstances, the physical photograph (or file) is normally passed over, because the photograph had some sort of purpose, and they enter the Navy archives that way. The fact that the photograph, before being donated, was in the hands of the Navy employee, and the fact it formed part of his scrapbook, are indicative that it was personal, that it was not done for some Navy purpose.
473:
In the absence of evidence, I think we should be cautious (as we usually are) and assume the file is not in the public domain. I think there is a clear case to suggest that the photograph is personal, rather than as an employee. Every employee takes personal photographs, and I'm sure only very rarely
462:
I don't know, Grandi, it seems to me your theory here would introduce a loophole that a truck could drive through ... "Oh, I know this work product is supposed to belong to you, but I intended to put it in my scrapbook, so it isn't work-related!" I'd prefer we get a copyright lawyer to advise on this
420:
I think that you're right in that the photo was probably not made by an official photographer, but the real question is its copyright status. Was that assigned to the museum or does it remain with the photographer? I supposed we could ask the museum what its stance is on these sorts of donations, but
197:
Really? What's your source? Friedman just says that they were unsuccessful without giving details. Hell, I'm not even sure if these .50s were air or water-cooled, although I suspect the latter. At any rate, I'm not aware of any signficant problems with the guns themselves at any point, but I'm not an
392:
was actually taken "during the course of the person's official duties". It is apparently taken from a personal scrapbook. Clearly there is scope to conclude that any photograph taken whilst a sailor is aboard ship is "during the course of his duties", but I'm not sure about that, it seems rather too
152:
I have a book with FAA squadron histories that details when each squadron is reequipped and tracks every move on or off ship. There's no
American equivalent that I'm aware of, aside from exceedingly incomplete coverage of a very few squadrons done by the Navy. You'll notice that I give the air group
725:
That's deliberate; I linked them as I thought most suitable. Just the islands when discussing the general situation and then the battle to discuss the ship's part in it. Don't forget that the hatnote for each section covers the general campaign or battle, so I didn't feel like I needed to be really
645:
I'm up to my eyeballs in work, so I'll have to go with the short answer: look at the reviews I've done of your work up to now, and my edits, and look at this article, and see if anything jumps out at you. If you're not seeing anything, get someone else to look at it. You've done a massive amount of
215:
I don't think that I can clarify it. Friedman: "In 1929, both ships were armed with experimental machine-gun batteries: two twin .50 caliber in
Saratoga... They were not successful and were removed." Stern: "during her 1933-34 overhaul the twin .50 cal mounting on the roof of No. 2 8-inch mount was
201:
What I mean to say is you call the installation "unsuccessful" but then note in the next part of the sentence that the mounts remained on the ship and one was replaced. So, the mounts were installed successfully, they just didn't work, right? Or were they partially installed but left incomplete? It
153:
in as much detail as I can during the WW2 period, but that's because that information is readily available, which is annoyingly not true for the interwar period. In fact, even tracking squadron lineages isn't easy as they were redesignated multiple times both before, during, and after the war.
784:. Finally, there were a few air raids on islands which don't seem to have individual articles, not exactly sure what to do there. Overall, when I click on an island name I expect the battle article, not the island and many island articles don't have the link to the specific battles in WWII.
393:
wide. The material, given it includes ball tickets, must have been donated and to the extent that the
National Museum asserts it's in the public domain (they don't seem to do this openly, but I'm not sure about the collections as whole) they may be mistaken. Could you look into a bit?
256:
That makes no sense because they would never be capitalized if that were true, ever. Appended to a name they become proper nouns and deserving of capitalization. Examples would be "the archduke said..." vs. Archduke
Ferdinand was assassinated..." You'll need to show me that
435:
The general rule is that it's difficult to surrender your copyright without an explicit declaration which even the museum does not seem to have made, even if post-donation it held the copyright (and that's far from clear). Alas, I think deletion was the only route open.
646:
work around here, and I think it would be reasonable for you to ask people to return the favor and help with your articles. I'm trying to give you a heads-up that I don't expect that I'm going to have time to fix everything myself at FAC. - Dank (
874:
Some inconsistency in the presentation of Task Forces, sometimes: "Task Force-X", sometimes "TF X" and still others "TF-X", probably best to select one and be consistent. Also I would recommend introducing the abbreviation "TF" at first use.
247:
You'll note that the information on her screen is often pretty cursory throughout the article. I mentioned the oiler because they were critically important in the early war period and were often the limiting factor in US operations of that
148:
does not have. It's particularly apparent the air group info is lacking in some places while the number of aircraft is not, such as in the inter-war period, but the necessary information is there right at the beginning of the WWII section.
554:"incorporate improved boiler technology and British wartime experiences": which experiences? If they simply adopted new British designs, you don't have to say more than that, but "incorporating ... experiences" is too vague. - Dank (
194:"...two twin .50-caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun mounts were installed in 1929. They were unsuccessful..." -- This wording implies the mounts were unsuccessful at being installed. They weren't, it was the guns themselves.
336:
Nope ARs comments seem spot on... I think you might have misunderstood what he wrote though. He said exactly what I said above (unless its so late here that I'm reading it wrong). He has differentiated between a
631:
Umm, could you be a little more specific, so I can take a stab at fixing whatever issues you've identified? This is likely to be my next FAC so I might as well do the work now rather than after the nomination.--
861:
Not quite sure what you mean here: "but the only
Japanese airstrike of the day was looking for the carriers and ignored the transports entirely." Do you mean "but the only Japanese airstrike of the day
540:
Friedman doesn't really discuss the stress issues mentioned in the
Lexington-class BC article, which needs serious revision, but focuses on improved boilers and lessons received from the British.--
302:"Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under Titles of people above. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general." (WP:MILTERMS)
236:
Inter-war period: "Captain Rufus F. Zogbaum relieved Steele, who was ordered to immediately retire, on 1 January 1933" -- Was his retirement a result of the grounding incident? I assume so.
156:
Well, that's rather frustrating. But I'm glad to hear it's a problem with US Navy sources in general, so my own carrier articles might see some improvement without that information. β
608:
21:
691:
Generally, I'm opposed to doing that sort of thing barring a major reconstruction like that done to the
Courageous-class ships. The infobox is plenty long enough already.
389:
244:"Saratoga's task force was delayed by the necessity to refuel its escorting destroyers" -- Since you note the support ships here, why not the ships in the screen?
694:
Its in the prose for the curious but I was just thinking since every one of those guns was removed by 1943 the reader would be better served with a 1945 summary.
518:"early warning radar in early 1941": I went with "first quarter" to avoid early ... early; correct that if it's wrong, or name the month if you know it. - Dank (
933:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
715:
I guess I don't get the point of these sections - if the text isn't useful I don't see the point of referring readers to it just because it happens to be free.
345:. So whilst the position is in lower case the rank is in upper case, note the example he used: "squadron executive officer Lieutenant Commander Dick Cevoli".
17:
621:
I did skim a little past the point where I stopped. It's acceptable for A-class; I would oppose the article in its current state at FAC. - Dank (
253:"Vice Admiral ChΕ«ichi Nagumo" et. al. I've recently been informed that the MOS for military ranks before names is they shouldn't be capitalized.
856:
761:
533:"partially as a result of British experience": I went with a little more detail: "After the war the ship was extensively redesigned to solve
912:
898:
884:
811:
793:
735:
651:
640:
626:
616:
583:
573:
559:
549:
523:
495:
468:
457:
430:
414:
367:
354:
331:
314:
286:
272:
225:
210:
187:
164:
118:
96:
57:
683:
If they're linked they don't need to have the conversions as they can just click on the link to see the conversion in their own article.
124:
216:
replaced by two single .50 cal Mk3s, while the older twin mounting on No. 3 was retained." What do you suggest given these sources?--
753:
749:
490:
452:
409:
781:
777:
722:
The article sometimes wiki links battle names and other times island names; I would specify the battle names when possible.
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
534:
688:
I would consider adding a summary of the new AA armament in 1944 in the infobox since it was significantly different.
835:
756:
in a single paragraph (and not the best name, this action has a lot of redirects to it!). Also, the offensive in the
844:
829:
894:
731:
636:
569:
545:
426:
282:
221:
183:
92:
77:
908:
880:
704:
As noted at its top, this infobox is generally for the ship as built with modifications noted in the text.
350:
310:
299:
ranks should be capitalised when used as a proper noun, but lower case when a common noun. Specifically:
296:
745:
600:
841:
292:
701:
Similarly, in 1943 the air group was 90 planes, not 78, probably worth mentioning in the infobox too.
143:
807:
789:
741:
604:
486:
448:
405:
137:
63:
889:
Good idea; I think that I've caught all of them, although I do still use both task force and TF.--
890:
773:
769:
727:
632:
565:
541:
422:
278:
217:
179:
131:
88:
73:
53:
803:
785:
130:
that carriers like this one need detailed sections devoted to their air groups similar to what
87:
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria.--
904:
876:
346:
306:
849:
The
Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
765:
510:. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (
175:
beam, displacement and draft numbers are different in the infobox from the design section.
757:
712:
What in there is worth incorporating into the text? Most of it really isn't encyclopedic.
670:
Infobox: changed the deep load to match the prose and I deleted the uncited 1945 figure.
647:
622:
612:
579:
555:
519:
511:
482:
464:
444:
401:
49:
709:
Consider a citing the Pop. M article and removing it from the external links.
846:
so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
360:
324:
265:
203:
157:
111:
748:
which is in the lead but not the prose; I'd also remove the easter egg
305:
As such Sturm's usage above seems correct to me. I hope this helps.
667:
I reworded the lead slightly to emphasize
Operation Crossroadss.
421:
I'm not really inclined to spend the time to do so. Deleted.--
198:
expert on the Ma Deuce, although I've fired a few in my time.
855:
The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations
673:
I think the range was also a typo; changed to match prose.
535:
structural problems discovered in
British battlecruisers
320:
866:
the carriers and ignored the transports entirely..."?
680:. (And that one doesn't have the metric conversions?)
537:
during the war." Feel free to tweak or expand that.
852:
Images review completed above (no action required).
390:File:5in-25 guns on USS Saratoga (CV-3) c1927.jpg
319:I've been told differently using the same policy
388:- one interesting chink here. I'm not convinced
726:strict with the links. Thanks for the review.--
239:Me too, but my source doesn't directly say so.
8:
740:Here's some of the ones I found: Instead of
18:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
359:Ahh. I see my mistake. Strike that then. β
676:changed 5" guns to use same format as
7:
33:The following discussion is closed.
903:Looks good, adding my support now.
605:USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)#Service history
28:
927:The discussion above is closed.
754:Bombing of Rabaul (November 1943)
778:invasion of the Treasury Islands
770:amphibious landings on Iwo Jima
760:... later easter egged in 'the
802:Overall, a very good article.
782:Battle of the Treasury Islands
603:, down to where I stopped, at
1:
617:17:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
584:18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
574:18:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
560:17:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
550:17:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
524:13:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
496:00:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
469:14:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
458:23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
431:23:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
415:17:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
368:16:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
355:15:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
332:14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
315:22:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
287:02:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
273:01:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
226:17:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
211:14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
188:02:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
165:14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
119:17:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
97:01:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
913:02:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
899:00:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
794:20:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
736:00:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
652:17:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
641:16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
627:14:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
142:have, though I do note that
58:04:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
885:22:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
812:17:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
950:
834:External links check out
291:Jumping in re ranks. Per
930:Please do not modify it.
277:Thanks for the review.--
36:Please do not modify it.
564:Added more specifics.--
323:. Was that incorrect? β
611:are my edits. - Dank (
202:should be clarified. β
858:(no action required).
837:(no action required).
831:(no action required).
746:Bougainville Campaign
840:One of images lacks
578:Looks good. - Dank (
178:Good catch, fixed.--
742:Bougainville Island
601:standard disclaimer
339:functional position
64:USS Saratoga (CV-3)
774:Battle of Iwo Jima
752:to talk about the
82:
941:
932:
766:Marshall Islands
744:you should link
494:
479:
456:
441:
413:
398:
365:
329:
270:
208:
162:
123:You noted in my
116:
70:
38:
949:
948:
944:
943:
942:
940:
939:
938:
937:
928:
758:Gilbert Islands
480:
475:
442:
437:
399:
394:
361:
325:
266:
204:
158:
112:
67:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
947:
945:
936:
935:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
872:
871:
870:
859:
853:
850:
847:
838:
832:
815:
814:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
707:
706:
705:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
686:
685:
684:
674:
671:
668:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
619:
597:So far so good
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
531:
530:
529:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
321:(point 4 here)
303:
264:Let me know. β
261:
260:
259:
258:
251:
250:
249:
242:
241:
240:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
192:
191:
190:
173:
172:
171:
170:
169:
168:
167:
127:Philippine Sea
86:
84:
83:
72:Nominator(s):
66:
61:
43:
42:
41:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
946:
934:
931:
925:
924:
914:
910:
906:
902:
901:
900:
896:
892:
891:Sturmvogel 66
888:
887:
886:
882:
878:
873:
868:
867:
865:
860:
857:
854:
851:
848:
845:
843:
839:
836:
833:
830:
828:No dab links
827:
826:
825:
822:
821:
817:
816:
813:
809:
805:
801:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
738:
737:
733:
729:
728:Sturmvogel 66
724:
723:
721:
714:
713:
711:
710:
708:
703:
702:
700:
693:
692:
690:
689:
687:
682:
681:
679:
675:
672:
669:
666:
665:
664:
663:
653:
649:
644:
643:
642:
638:
634:
633:Sturmvogel 66
630:
629:
628:
624:
620:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
599:on prose per
598:
595:
585:
581:
577:
576:
575:
571:
567:
566:Sturmvogel 66
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
552:
551:
547:
543:
542:Sturmvogel 66
539:
538:
536:
532:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
516:
515:
513:
509:
497:
492:
488:
484:
478:
472:
471:
470:
466:
463:one. - Dank (
461:
460:
459:
454:
450:
446:
440:
434:
433:
432:
428:
424:
423:Sturmvogel 66
419:
418:
417:
416:
411:
407:
403:
397:
391:
387:
369:
366:
364:
358:
357:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
335:
334:
333:
330:
328:
322:
318:
317:
316:
312:
308:
304:
301:
300:
298:
294:
290:
289:
288:
284:
280:
279:Sturmvogel 66
276:
275:
274:
271:
269:
263:
262:
255:
254:
252:
246:
245:
243:
238:
237:
235:
227:
223:
219:
218:Sturmvogel 66
214:
213:
212:
209:
207:
200:
199:
196:
195:
193:
189:
185:
181:
180:Sturmvogel 66
177:
176:
174:
166:
163:
161:
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
141:
140:
135:
134:
129:
128:
122:
121:
120:
117:
115:
109:
106:
105:
101:
100:
99:
98:
94:
90:
89:Sturmvogel 66
81:
79:
75:
74:Sturmvogel 66
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
48:
40:
37:
31:
30:
23:
19:
929:
926:
905:Anotherclown
877:Anotherclown
863:
823:
819:
818:
677:
661:
660:
648:push to talk
623:push to talk
613:push to talk
596:
580:push to talk
556:push to talk
520:push to talk
512:push to talk
507:
506:
476:
465:push to talk
438:
395:
385:
384:
362:
347:Anotherclown
342:
338:
326:
307:Anotherclown
297:WP:JOBTITLES
267:
205:
159:
144:
138:
132:
126:
113:
107:
103:
102:
85:
71:
46:
44:
35:
32:
293:WP:MILTERMS
139:Courageous
22:Assessment
864:targetted
678:Lexington
477:Grandiose
439:Grandiose
396:Grandiose
145:Lexington
133:Ark Royal
842:Alt Text
762:invasion
662:Comments
508:Comments
491:contribs
453:contribs
410:contribs
104:Comments
50:Hawkeye7
47:promoted
45:Article
20: |
824:Support
820:Comment
780:--: -->
772:--: -->
764:of the
257:rule...
125:GAN of
108:Support
750:attack
386:Images
341:and a
869:Done.
609:These
528:Done.
248:time.
16:<
909:talk
895:talk
881:talk
808:talk
804:Kirk
790:talk
786:Kirk
732:talk
637:talk
570:talk
546:talk
487:talk
449:talk
427:talk
406:talk
351:talk
343:rank
311:talk
295:and
283:talk
222:talk
184:talk
136:and
93:talk
78:talk
54:talk
514:)
363:Ed!
327:Ed!
268:Ed!
206:Ed!
160:Ed!
114:Ed!
911:)
897:)
883:)
810:)
792:)
776:,
768:,
734:)
650:)
639:)
625:)
615:)
607:.
582:)
572:)
558:)
548:)
522:)
493:)
489:,
485:,
483:me
467:)
455:)
451:,
447:,
445:me
429:)
412:)
408:,
404:,
402:me
353:)
313:)
285:)
224:)
186:)
95:)
56:)
907:(
893:(
879:(
806:(
788:(
730:(
635:(
568:(
544:(
481:(
443:(
425:(
400:(
349:(
309:(
281:(
220:(
182:(
110:β
91:(
80:)
76:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.