Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of public art in the City of Westminster/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 12:14, 14 April 2015 [1].

List of public art in the City of Westminster edit

List of public art in the City of Westminster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ham II (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this list's previous submission for FLC it has been completely reformatted in order to be machine-readable. Due to the number of templates being invoked by the new format, the sections on Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, Paddington and St Marylebone have been split off into standalone lists. The scope of this list may now be narrower, but that's quite consistent with the Westminster volumes in the Public Sculpture of Britain and Buildings of England series, which cover the area of the smaller, pre-1965 City of Westminster (despite their 21st-century publication dates). I look forward eagerly to your comments! Ham II (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice list: many sources, many images, good structure.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983: Thank you! Ham II (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pigsonthewing
@Pigsonthewing:  Fixed. Thanks for the support! Ham II (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the five works that follow" doesn't sit well, in a sortable table. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Rephrased: This and the five works that follow → This is one of several works (There are more than the six in this list.) Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Jackyd101
  • A phenomenal and fascinating list and an astonishing body of work. I have no vote at the moment, although I will once I've actually read through it all, but I do have a question and a two comments - apologies if these have been answered earlier, but I am curious.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Why is there a tiny box between grade and Notes?
@Jackyd101: This is a problem with {{Public art row}}; I'll ask for it to be fixed at the template's talk page.
@Jackyd101:  Fixed. (Thanks, Frietjes!) Ham II (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) I find the "Title / subject" column a little hard to follow - sometimes the link is to the art work, sometimes to the person it depicts. Sometimes it's in italics, sometimes its not. I originally thought that the italics indicated the artwork and normal text the subject, but this is inconsistent (James Cook / Florence Nightingale for example) so I'm not clear on why the italics are there. A simple solution would be to do what you've done with "Memorial to William Ewart Gladstone" right at the top and put "Statue of so and so" in this box, linking the whole thing when the link is to the artwork and the person only when its to the person.
If it's an individual's name, normal text indicates a link to the person, but if the name's in italics it's a link to the artwork. Otherwise, normal usage of italics is followed: italic for the titles of artworks and normal for anything else. "Statue of" would probably be helpful for any future transfer to Wikidata but would lose the functionality of {{Sortname}}‍—‌unless some super-duper {{Statue of}}, {{Bust of}} and {{Memorial to}} templates were to be created to get around this...
I think I understand better - works of art like statues are in italics but memorials are not? Still doesn't explain James Cook though. Two potential solutions are to either just put "statue", " memorial" etc after the name, or to use the {{hs|Foo}} template to make them sortable. I can't deny that it bugs me that the links are inconsistent - not only are you not sure what kind of link you are clicking on, but it means that some links that should be there aren't: for example, there is a statue of James II in Trafalgar Square but as far as I can see there is no link to the man himself on this page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, found a link to him, but its in a different section further down the page and I had to search for it, so I think my point stands.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer something like Statue of James II? James Cook was a mistake and now links, as it should, to Statue of Captain James Cook, The Mall. Ham II (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that yes. If you don't think its a good idea I'm open to discussing it though. I think on a list like this people want to known where they are going when they click on a link, and will expect to be able to access the articles on the artwork and the subject (assuming they exist) from the entry in the list.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @Jackyd101: It's taken all day but I did it! Ham II (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I was looking for and I think it looks a lot better. Sorry to be a pain in the arse!--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3) This no doubt violates some FLC criteria and if so I'll withdraw it, but there are names cropping up in the list I would expect to be linked, but which aren't (Rodin for example). This is presumably because they've been linked earlier, except that lists aren't usually meant to be read sequentially and the sort function renders the sequence temporary anyway.
This is one that came up in the last FLC review, and I spent the best part of a day before this review removing duplicate links. Rodin is linked in his first mention in the text but that's not in the entry for the only sculpture by him (The Burghers of Calais). I could change this so that being mentioned in the "artist" field becomes in effect the "first" appearance of a name; as you've said, the sequential order is temporary (whereas the left-to-right order is permanent). I've done the same with the "subject" field, treating links there as the "first" appearance as that's where you'd expect to find them. Ham II (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it - I'd certainly prefer overlinking than underlinking in a list, but I've experienced this sort of things before where one person says something, you spend the whole day fixing it and then someone else tells you to undo it, and I'm not going to be that guy. It is a little irritating though - just had to use the search tool to find the link to Jacob Epstein.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the ones on the building? These would count as architectural sculpture. Or the statue of Gladstone? JMiall₰ 23:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, makes sense.
@Jackyd101: The two sculptural groups on either side of the entrance are in this list. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5) I'm nearly ready to support, but I do have a question: does Bansky's sadly destroyed "One Nation Under CCTV" count as public art? --Jackyd101 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it used to be in this list but is now in List of public art formerly in London. JMiall₰ 17:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackyd101 and JMiall: Yes, that's right. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make it clear in the lead that this is only "current public art in the city of Westminster" then? You'll also need to remove the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh as under these terms it shouldn't be on this list. Once that's done I think I'm happy to support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. @Jackyd101: The idea was that artworks moved out of the borough but within London would be included, whilst those which were no longer in London would be in List of public art in the City of Westminster, but I now think that's too arcane. Ham II (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6) Actually I do have one other point and you're not going to like it. After some consideration I've decided not to make my support conditional on this, but I do think you should seriously consider it. This article has a lot of embedded co-ordinates, but none have the |name= parameter listed. This means that when someone looks at the wiki markup on a map, the link is titled "List of public art in the City of Westminster", when it should be titled with the name of the artwork the co-ordinates link to. This would actually be of considerable practical value to this article's wider functionality as a guide to public art.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen that someone above asked you to remove this so I've struck my recommendation. Does the template automatically do this name function? If not, then why remove it? --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that's the reason, but as {{GeoGroup}} doesn't work for Google Maps any more I can't tell. It's a question to ask at the template talk for {{Public art row}}. Ham II (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Rodw

An impressive list - I was playing a little game with myself about how many I had seen. I note the double line before notes and wikilinking in sortable lists have been highlighted above, but a few other comments:

  • Lead
  • It says there are more than "400 public artworks..." do we know how many (and therefore is this a complete list)?
@Rodw: I don't think a complete survey has ever been done (not since 1910, anyway), and recently there have been new additions every year so any figures would quickly go out of date. I got 400+ by adding together all the works covered in this category [correction: not the architectural sculpture list], all of which used to be covered by this list. Forking off two of the Royal Parks and the places which used not to be in Westminster was necessary as the templates wouldn't all show on one page. The tricky areas to find information about are Paddington and St Marylebone, but as those now have separate lists I'm pretty confident that nothing major has been left out of this list.
All of Green Park, Hyde Park and St James's Park and parts of Kensington Gardens and Regent's Park are in the City of Westminster. (Only Green Park and St James's Park are covered in this list, though) I've listed the parks but dropped the bit about Charing Cross being the official centre as the sentence was getting too long. (It's still in the lede image caption.)
OK Hyde Park was a dab so I changed to Hyde Park, London.— Rod talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't know Charing Cross was the official centre of London - is there a reference for this claim?
Yes, in the relevant section: "Charing Cross was declared the official centre of London in 1831[47]"
  • Aldwych / Strand
The source simply says "Saxons", but Pevsner has "Anglo-Saxons". I've linked to Anglo-Saxon London.
Aha!
  • I know what LSE stands for but other readers might not, so could be written in full or wikilinked - I know this is done in the intro to the sub section but not on the entry for Mosaic or Eagle
All mentions in the |location= field now have "London School of Economics"
Is the first wikilink to the Windsor Sculpture Park (in the section lede) enough?
Personally when I do sortable lists I wikilink once in each row, and I have asked for clarification of this - but never got a definitive answer.— Rod talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically what I had before I spent a day removing the "overlinking". Do you have a link to the conversation you had? This sorely needs clarification.
@Rodw: I've decided to wikilink Windsor Sculpture Park. If you could find the discussion, though, it would be interesting to see how it went. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the discussion. I would suggest putting a new message on the FLC talk page about this for wider discussion.— Rod talk 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: Will do. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth (somewhere) explaining or linking Grade I, Grade II to listed building?
Restored an earlier phrasing in the lede: "the most significant being the Grade I-listed Cenotaph in Whitehall".
They're flags, which unlike the ones on the Cenotaph are carved from stone and painted. I've called them "fictive" to clarify things.
Is this necessary given that "Royal Air Force" is in the same sentence as the only appearance of "RAF"?
  • Are Queen Mother, Cologne and Dresden worth wikilinks?
Queen Mother is linked further down but as my choices of where to link are confusing everybody I'll link it here too. Also linked the other two.
  • Three Fates has a reference but nothing in Notes.
The reference only gives the basic information in the preceding columns.
I would add something into the notes section.— Rod talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a problem as if anyone's done the legwork to find more information it's going probably Philip Ward-Jackson writing for the Public Sculpture of Britain‍—‌the source cited. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would still advocate adding something.— Rod talk 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I've gone for simply "Part of the Odette bequest". 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of the Artist/designer & Architect/other entries have references and some do not.
Usually the references in |notes= cover the whole entry; where there are refs in |artist= and |architect= that's because they only cover those what's in that particular field and the refs in |notes= don't have the information.
Looking at {{Public art row}} it says "Please keep all comments, annotations and references in the |notes= field." I'm not familiar with this template so I'm not sure why this instruction is there, but it looks strange to me to have references in those columns for some & not others.— Rod talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer a string of footnotes at the end of |notes=, including for information not in the Notes field? Only asking, not being confrontational. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would prefer all the references which relate to that row in one place (but I can't quote any guidelines or anything for this).— Rod talk 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: Moved all refs in {{Public art row}} to |notes=. Ham II (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bayswater
  • I'm now a bit confused is this in the City of Westminster or in Paddington?
It's now in Westminster as Paddington merged into it in 1965.
So if it is in Westmintsre shouldn't it be included here rather than making the reader go off to another list? Does the same apply to Fitzrovia, Hyde Park, Lisson Grove, Maida Vale, Marylebone etc and for some eg Knightsbridge partial are included in this - I am confused and I'm a reasonably regular visitor to London - I suspect readers who have never visited may be more so - does this decision about inclusion and exclusion criteria need to be explained somewhere?— Rod talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - would it be possible to get a map drawn showing the areas referred to in the list and use this as the lead image to enable readers to get some understanding of the areas, boundaries etc? The folks at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop are very good for advice and help in this sort of thing.— Rod talk 11:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will request this at the Graphics Lab. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: I've created my own map using Paint at File:Public art in the City of Westminster map.png, which is now in the article lede. Is this of high enough quality for a Featured List? Or should I still ask at the Graphics Lab? Ham II (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive much better than my graphics skills. It says the areas covered by yellow are in this list - which leads me to come back to another comment about if the areas in red, blue, green etc are in the City of Westminster then they should be in this list. An alternative (and radical) approach, if there are too many for one list, would be to have one article with a brief overview of the art in each area & then seperate lists for each of the areas (similar to Scheduled monuments in Somerset or Grade I listed buildings in Somerset & 7 sub lists). This would also get over the issue of having columns different widths in different sections of this list.— Rod talk 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: I'm open to List of public art in the City of Westminster being a set of links to the six subpages, basically like List of public art in London, but with a lede section. The rest of the content of this article would be at List of public art in Westminster (currently a redirect). It's a bit of a cheat as the "Westminster" in the article would not be the same as Westminster, but as I said right at the beginning of this review the relevant volume of The Public Sculpture of Britain, on "historic Westminster", does something similar. This would mean that I wouldn't have to re-draw the map, but I'm afraid the sections within lists (and so the difference in column widths) would have to stay. What do you think? Ham II (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of each of the lists for different areas eg one list for Aldwych / Strand, one for Belgravia etc (with one table in each list) in the same way there is one for List of public art in Hyde Park, London, which I think of as in "Westminster" but I don't understand the semantics/policy/history of different versions of "Westminster" you are referring to above.— Rod talk 20:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: I'm open to this as a long-term future direction for the list to take, but if I'm honest it's too much work to take on now; there are 31 other London boroughs which need attention and there is already at least one vote in support of the list in its current form. I can see this list being broken up into another ten subdivisions in the distant future, one of which would be "Kensington"‍—‌meaning that List of public art in Kensington and Chelsea would also have to be broken up for that subdivision to be meaningful. Before doing this I'd like to wait for the second volume of Public Sculpture of Historic Westminster, on architectural sculpture, to come out, so that architectural sculpture can be included in the new sub-lists instead of being segregated in its own list as it is now.
As regards "Westminster", the two books cited in the first here treat it as, basically, the City of Westminster before the merger in 1965. Pevsner, p. xvi: "Westminster‍—‌that is, the area that was merged in 1965 with the boroughs of Paddington and Marylebone into the present, expanded City of Westminster..."; Public Sculpture of Historic Westminster Vol. 1, p. v: "The City of Westminster extends north into St John's Wood and west into Kensington... for reasons of space this volume can only cover the historic south-eastern core of Westminster" (i.e. a smaller area than in both Pevsner and this article.) As you can see, in both of these the full-scale "City of Westminster" is contrasted with a smaller "Westminster" which is, however, bigger than the true "historic Westminster" (i.e. the subject of our article Westminster) with the Abbey, Parliament, etc. What I was proposing in the last post was something similar to that: List of public art in Westminster being essentially the list currently under review, while List of public art in the City of Westminster, standing between List of public art in London above it and List of public art in Westminster below, would help navigation by listing the districts (e.g. Bayswater, Regent's Park, Soho...) covered in each of the six sub-lists.
Sorry for the long-winded reply, but this is nothing if not complicated! Ham II (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belgravia
  • Memorial to Richard Grosvenor, 2nd Marquess of Westminster - you have a ? for architect/other - this source has mosaics by Antonio Salviati
Thanks! Is it Antonio Salviati or his firm Salviati? I'll assume the latter. Is the source also implying that John Douglas was the architect? I also once saw Thomas Henry Wyatt as the architect for this somewhere, but I'll never remember where.
  • General
  • Why are the column widths different in each of the sub lists?
This is because of {{Public art row}}, and might not be fixable as it has lots of parameters which can be opted in and out of.
My guess (but I'm not a template expert) would be that {{Public art header}} enables the column width to be set automatically assuming it will only be used once in each article. I would find out if the column widths can be set as a percentage of screen width & then make them all the same. Also the template may have Owner/administrator as a compulsory column and even though there is no content still includes it therefore giving the double line.— Rod talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Pigsonthewing to look into this; I can't see anything in the documentation. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to set the width in the template, this can either be hard coded in the template, which will do it for every article that uses the template, or by a parameter for each column on a per-table basis, which will create extra work and potential for error. For these reasons, I'd prefer not to do it, unless it's causing a major problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If these sort of comments are useful I will come back and do some more.— Rod talk 20:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, keep 'em coming! Ham II (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belgravia (con't)
  • Was it laid out with "with a high concentration of embassies and diplomatic buildings" in 1820 as this is what the lead implies or did the embassies etc come later?
I've rewritten this section's lede to address this point and the next one down but one. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hercules - you have (erected) after the date, but this is not included for other statues etc.
minus Removed
  • Statue of Robert Grosvenor, 1st Marquess of Westminster is described as "developer of Belgravia", but in the section lead Cubitt and Cundy are credited.
See above. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charing Cross / Trafalgar Square
@Rodw: You mean in the lede?  Done.
  • Trafalgar Square, is desceribed as "one of London’s most famous public spaces" I think that is probably true but "most famous" is always controversial.
Would this page from london.gov.uk be an acceptable ref? It calls Trafalgar Square "London’s most famous square". It does seem worth stressing the fame for this of all things.
I see "one of the city’s most vibrant open spaces" on that page but not "one of London’s most famous public spaces". Fame is very subjective.— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant quotation is "London’s most famous square", at the end of the page. I've added the ref now so please let me know if you object. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, in the lede? If so,  Done.
I think so...
  • I have been discouraged from using q.v. and similar codes.
Should the relevant text (e.g. "statue of Edward Jenner") link to the anchor then, or is it best to keep links to sections within articles to a minimum?
I don't quite understand.— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all q.v.s; they're more trouble than they're worth. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • Nelson's Column - is "unidealised" a word and what does it mean? Portland stone could be wikilinked
"Not regarded or represented as better than in reality; true to life" (oxforddictionaries.com). I've wikilinked "Portland stone" for the first of its five mentions, in the Belgravia section, but not afterwards.
Perhaps "true to life" then.— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased to the following: "Nelson is shown without an eyepatch, but his portrayal in this statue is not idealised by the standards of the time." I don't think this is asking too much of the reader; "idealised" is quite a common term in art history. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added. Again, the link was already further down the page, but I've added another here.
Yep I believe 1st mention (outside the lead) should always be wikilinked (and as I said I would link once per row in sortable lists).— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beatty Memorial Fountain again nothing in notes
plus Added more.
  • Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope not an issue but I'm intrigued by "The bust contains a half-pint bottle of Guinness"
It was Franta Belsky's trademark; I think he did the same for the statue of Earl Mountbatten.
  • Platform murals - I don't understand "Gentleman" in this context - is it David Gentleman?
Yes; isn't that clear enough? Ham II (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More when I get some time.— Rod talk 12:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will look again at the other subsections later, but many of the issues I see are similar to those listed above.

  • References and Bibliography
  • Shouldn't all (recent) books have isbn numbers?
@Rodw: plus Added for the ones in the Bibliography; will follow up with the others.
 Done all the remaining ones. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where NHLE data sheets are used sometimes English Heritage is given as the author (eg 64, 102, 112, 182, 290, 322, 364, 367 ) and sometimes it has EH as the publisher (eg 26) this should be consistent (I always treat EH as the publisher)
16 was the only one that didn't use {{English Heritage List entry}}, so it's now been changed.
All of these now don't have a publisher.— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather keep the consistency and convenience that comes with using the template, so this would have to be raised at {{English Heritage List entry}}. However, this usage is consistent with treating Westminster City Council as the corporate author for other refs‍—‌which for ones using {{Harvnb}} is a technical necessity. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: The recent switchover from English Heritage to Historic England (which is officially to be launched tomorrow, but the change is already in effect online) has confirmed for me that it was best to stick to this template, as the change has been made automatically for every instance of the template. There has been (rather fragmented) discussion on the template talk about putting "English Heritage" (now Historic England) as the corporate author and the current appearance of the template (except for the recent name change) seems to be the result of consensus there.
  • 15 What makes London details a reliable source (self generated & uploaded content)
The only other source I can find for this is Geograph. Can anyone with access to JSTOR or similar help?
  • 27 What makes Slide Share a reliable source (self generated & uploaded content)
Changed to a PDF published by the Grosvenor Group; the SlideShare page was the only available source at the time.
  • 31 - is a redirect & I can't see the claim supported
 Fixed. Retrieved from the Internet Archive.
  • 48 ? a book could be moved to bibliography
I've only put books which are used more than once in the bibliography. Should they all go there?
That is how I would do it, but I don't know if there is a specific guideline to follow.— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All books but one now moved to the bibliography; Glinert 2012 (ref 168) doesn't have page numbers, so I'll get this from my local library. That one wasn't added by me! Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw:  Done the last one. Ham II (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 49 possible doi error
minus Removed the DOI.
  • 157 has URL showing - format issue
 Fixed
  • 261 needs a publisher
 Fixed
  • 290 includes the NHLE ref number in the title - the others don't
I don't see this; as far as I can tell they all have the number.
  • 339 ? a book therefore should it be in bibliography
See 48 above.
 Done. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some conservation area audits by Westminster City Council are in bibliography but others are in the reference list.
Again, the same reason as 48 above. Perhaps conservation area audits could be a separate section of the bibliography as they're webpages, not books? The ones in the Bibliography are needed there as page numbers are cited.
Personally I would put them all into bibliography. I guess this is personal choice however consistency is generally good.— Rod talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done‍—‌given conservation area audits their own section. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised that a PDF from Westminster City Council, "Guidance for the Erection of New Monuments", has always been in the Bibliography section, so I've decided to merge the conservation area audits back into the main bibliography. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are helpful— Rod talk 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for going through this. I've run out of time for tonight, so sorry for not getting to the older questions. I've also got a very busy week ahead so the replies might be thinner on the ground till Friday. Ham II (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking much better than when I last looked at it and I have struck some of my comments. A couple more:

  • Ref 86 shows on my screen as "Template:Ward-Jackson" without a page number - I think sfn or similar is missing
@Rodw:  Fixed.
  • Ref 87 "Bardley & Pevsner 2003" doesn't link to the bibliography details properly (not sure why)
 Fixed. Ham II (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have put a lot of work into this list.— Rod talk 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JMiall

I reviewed this previously and was basically happy with it. Since then it has improved although sadly got shorter as well. I didn't ask that all duplicate links be removed - I only objected to the same thing being linked many times in a row.

@JMiall: Sorry for my outburst about "overlinking" earlier on. It really hasn't been clear what best practice is for this.

Anyway, a bit of random sample fact checking between this list and the linked articles on dates that don't match:

  • Duke of York Column
1832–4 goes from the completion of the column to the erection of the statue. It seems as if the design was ready by 1829 (Ward-Jackson 2011, p. 387), so I suppose that is the start date. Changed to 1829–34.
  • Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain
1885 here was the date when the commission started. The unveiling date was 1893. Changed to 1885–93 here and at Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain.
  • Boadicea and Her Daughters (although it explains why)
Dates now corrected at Boadicea and Her Daughters (formerly 1902–3; now 1856–83 (executed); June 1902 (erected)), with citation. That is now consistent with this article.
  • Buxton Memorial Fountain – only mentions 1865
Completion date (February 1866) now mentioned at Buxton Memorial Fountain, so that supports the date here (1865–6).
  • The Burghers of Calais
1895 date here was incorrect; changed to 1884–9 (cited and consistent with The Burghers of Calais).

which means there are probably more to find. A bit of clarity on what date it is in the date column might be useful. JMiall₰ 21:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think the dates should go from conception to completion, where those dates are known.
Also I don't think the lead image is very good. I can see why a photo of that statue is being used but I'd prefer a better image of something else, or a map (as mentioned above). JMiall₰ 21:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of replacing the lead image with, hopefully, a better depiction of the same statue. Prioryman (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JMiall and Prioryman: That is an improvement overall. Although the previous pic was better composed and didn't have the long side of the plinth in shadow, this has more striking colours. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alien (sculpture)

I've just across Alien (sculpture) and wondered why it isn't included in the list - although initially temporary it seems to have become more permanent.— Rod talk 18:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has only been given planning permission to be there until next month. Westminster planning portal don't seem to have any applications to extend again, and they are running out of time, so I'd assume that it really will be going soon. JMiall₰ 19:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport

This is a prodigious article, of which Wikipedia can be proud. There's nothing to match it anywhere else that I can find online.

@Tim riley: Thanks for saying such nice things!

A few queries:

  • Passim: I notice you refer throughout to "Queen Elizabeth II" but just to "George V", and I wonder why use the title for one monarch but not the other.
Changed to Elizabeth II. I'm not used to seeing a phrase like "Unveiled by Elizabeth II" without the word "Queen"; it implies a bit of historical distance, and that was my rationale for using that style. However, it looks fine without the "Queen".
  • Memorial to Andrew Young: is it compliant with the MoS to reproduce the inscription in all capitals? Is there an understanding that MOS:ALLCAPS doesn't apply to inscriptions? The same question applies to other incidences of all-caps later on the page, except to the Greek on the Garrick memorial.
I would hope that accurate transcription isn't seen as being an "unnecessary" use of capitals! This doesn't appear to have been raised before so I have mentioned it at WT:MOSCAPS.
  • Salutation: Should "abstracted" be "abstract"? "Passersby" should be hyphenated, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.
Changed to abstract and passers-by.
  • William Gilson Humphry Memorial Drinking Fountain: is there a suitable article to which to link "mash spout"?
I can't find one; sorry.
  • Leaves: I have wikified the curly apostrophe here and elsewhere. I saw a pair of curly double quotes elsewhere, too, which please check for.
minus Removed the one other instance of curly quotation marks.
  • Canada memorial: "Inscribed bilingually in English and French" – tautological.
minus Removed the tautology.
  • Statue of William Edward Forster: " appropriately enough" – WP:EDITORIAL
minus Removed.
  • King’s Reach Memorial: not sure why a blue link to George V after several unlinked earlier mentions of him
minus Removed the stray blue link.
  • Savoy Hotel Centenary Memorial: earlier (Sullivan memorial) you refer to "a quotation from The Yeomen of the Guard" in contrast with the more detailed "lines from Gilbert and Sullivan's Savoy opera, Ruddigore" here. Might be as well to address this inconsistency.
Changed the Sullivan Memorial description: Inscribed with a quotation from Gilbert and Sullivan's comic opera The Yeomen of the Guard. The rationale for the Centenary Memorial description being as it is is that it needs the word "Savoy" to stress the connection between the quotation and the subject of the memorial.
  • Statue of Winston Churchill: "Lady Clementine Spencer-Churchill" is an incorrect style. She was "Lady Spencer-Churchill" or "Clementine, Lady Spencer-Churchill", but not " Lady Clementine" – which would be the daughter of an earl or other senior peer.
 Fixed to Clementine, Lady Spencer Churchill.

That's all from me. – Tim riley talk 12:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Ham II (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to Support this very fine page for promotion to Featured status. It gave me enormous pleasure, taught me a lot, and meets all the FL criteria in my view. Bravo! Tim riley talk 11:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very extensive and interesting list. Just one query. In the first item, what has Edmond J. Safra to do with Somerset House? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: He's listed here as a "Major Supporter" of Somerset House and the courtyard has been renamed the Edmond J. Safra Fountain Court after him. Thank you for the support! Ham II (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2015 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_public_art_in_the_City_of_Westminster/archive2&oldid=1138487243"