The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Sukhoi Su-25[edit]

Very good article with proper images and references. I worked a lot on it in the past few time, and I would like to know if it deserves to become an A-class article. Regards, --Eurocopter tigre 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ComentSupport This really needs a good copyedit, but it appears to meet the other criteria. Carom 19:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already talked with some people to help me do it. So, are you supporting it? --Eurocopter tigre 19:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not until the prose has been improved a little (although, I'm not actively opposing it, either). Carom 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you tell me exactly which sections currently need attention and most urgent copyediting? Thanks, --Eurocopter tigre 19:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article needs to be looked at, really. In particular, there are a number of long, clunky sentences that could be reworded or recombined to allow for a better flow, and you may wish to examine the comma usage in some places - there are a number of unneccessary commas that make for awkward reading. Carom 21:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — I've copyedited a few of the sections, and fixed a date error in the intro paragraph -- it didn't agree with one of your cites later on. It's a pretty comprehensive look on the subject, and even though I'm not familiar with the topic, I felt that it was easy to read. JKBrooks85 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — I've read through it all and reworded in places to clarify. It looks good. Very good detail on the design. -Fnlayson 21:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the images used on the page appear to lack sources outside of a very vague link to a website, and the claim of PD on all of them needs further justification. Megapixie 06:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infact given [1] they would seem to all be unfree... Megapixie 06:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this link [2], there is a clear copyright information at the bottom of the page - Copyright notice: Information on this non-profit web site has been collected from a variety of printed and online sources for educational purposes in accordance with the Fair Use clause of the U.S. copyright law. --Eurocopter tigre 07:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would make them unfree for the purposes of wikipedia. It's basically saying "we took these images from copyright books, websites and magazines and are using them here because we think we can get away with it". The only way we could use them is under fair-use, however we don't have a clear source, and they fall outside the WP:NFCC. Megapixie 07:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the images were taken from books, sites, etc, in accordance with the US copyright law - and the site clearly says they are under fair-use. So, our source is 'www.aeronautics.ru', a site which guarantees that this images are in fair use, and it is not our, or wikipedia's business to verify if this is true or not. --Eurocopter tigre 08:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look I don't know how to say this politely - but you are completely wrong about this. www.aeronautics.com is almost certainly not the copyright holder, therefore they cannot release the images. The page that sums this up most succiently is Wikipedia:Upload/Unknown_author_or_license. If you want to read up on this (and you should before uploading any more images) see the image use policy at Wikipedia:Image use policy. In particular

" Before you upload an image, make sure that either:

• You own the rights to the image (usually meaning that you created the image yourself).
• You can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under an acceptable free license.
• You can prove that the image is in the public domain".

Of which you have done none. Megapixie 08:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You can prove that the image is in the public domain" - In my opinion, that copyright notice proves that the image is under fair use in public domain. I really don't know what to say anymore, we should find a compromise for the sake of the article. Is there any chance to change the licensing claims into better ones? --Eurocopter tigre 09:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aeronautics.ru's fair use claim works here as well, I believe. It's just info on the original source needs to be added here in the fair use rationale claim. It may take contacting the site to fins that out. -Fnlayson 13:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately none of the images from Aeronautics don't pass WP:NFCC criteria 1,2 and 10a:

• We could reasonable create replacements for all of the images (1)
• All of the images were likely being commercially exploited (2)
• we have absolutely no idea where any of them ORIGINALLY came from (10a)

10a is fixable. The other two are not. Even if they were - we are not commenting on the images critically, they are not uniquely historic (none of them would justify there own article per Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima) and we are certainly not using them for parody so they aren't fair use. Megapixie 13:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, most probable some of this images were taken by Soviet Air Force or other Soviet/Russian officials, so this images would fall under something similar with the ((PD-USGov-Military)), but i'm not sure if such an image tag exist. No offense, in the 1970s Soviet Union, there were very few people and officials which had access to military prototypes, etc. However, I'm still supporting the fact that this images could fall under fair use on wikipedia also (opinion supported by Fnlayson also), although I think it will be imposible to contact the site, as it was last updated in 2003. --Eurocopter tigre 17:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Replacement images may be available but not readily (Iron curtain thing). I'm not sure of the commercial aspects of the images themselves. Some images of newer versions may be attainable though. Possible tags are ((PD-RU-exempt)), ((PD-Russia)) or Image copyright tags. I hate trying to go back and fix CP tagging on images.. -Fnlayson 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Me too, but unfortunately there is always somebody who is assuming bad faith, and like to screw up other people's work, so we will have to find a sollution to fix this problem for the sake of the article. I have studied the Russian Copyright Laws, and the ((PD-RU-exempt)), ((PD-Russia)) doesn't apply here. --Eurocopter tigre 17:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody else has anything to comment regarding the images, I think they should remain under fair-use, and the aeronautics.ru claims should work on wikipedia as well. --Eurocopter tigre 10:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the images at WP:PUI. Megapixie 11:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the posible unfree images were removed and will be replaced very soon. --Eurocopter tigre 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — It meets requirements, though it still needs some copyediting. I'll try to work on it. --Victor12 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Seems to have met the criteria. Kyriakos 23:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.