Talk:Liberty Arming the Patriot/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 20:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article.

I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• "Unlike many Civil War memorials, this one is a dynamic composition" - sounds rough, try "Unlike many Civil War memorials, Liberty Arming the Patriot is a dynamic composition"
• --Jackyd101 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)"by The New York Times, but" italicise New York Times"
• "Her face is impassive, as she bestow" - remove the comment
• "plaque depicting a Union artillery" - its either "a Union cannon" or "the Union artillery"

• This is still here and needs fixing--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Is the displacement in the "Inscription" section deliberate?

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• "is a twist on an ancient allegory" - what allegory? Clarify this further.

• I've read your reply, but this still needs clarifying - what is the allegory? If the allegory is of the young man taking up arms, how is it twisted (seems fairly standard to me)? If this is a quote then say so explicitly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Better, I'm OK with this--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Liberty Arming the Patriot is historically significant as dynamic sculpture the commemorates the service of Civil War." - This sentence seems redundant.

• If this "historical significance" is a formal attribution by a particular organization then say so e.g. "Liberty Arming the Patriot is classed as "historically significant" by the Rhode Island awesome statues coalition as dynamic sculpture that commemorates the service of Civil War." (for example)--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "It is also significant as an example of the Gorham Manufacturing Company" - In what way is this significant? Did they only make a few statues?

• After reading below, it might make more sense as "It is a significant example of the statuary produced by the Gorham Manufacturing Company"--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

• The "Significance" section is tiny and could be easily merged into the history and design section (since its about history & design)

• @Jackyd101: I believe all the issues are addressed, however a few questions deserve an answer. The format of the inscription is deliberate - it accurately recreates the flow and form of the actual inscription. Inscriptions are not prose and are most accurately represented in this form. It goes from being a sentence - to like a speech - as if spoken aloud. Read the words aloud or in your head and you will certainly see this effect. The "ancient allegory" is more of the young man trading the plow for the sword... its not expanded or covered in the nomination. The "historically significant" is related to the NRHP importance criteria - which is a tad redundant, but it is the reason given as to why it is on the NRHP. While Gorham produced many excellent works - masterpieces are always masterpieces. Columbus (Providence, Rhode Island) is a work from the company that was sculpted by Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi. The Gorham article is woefully inadequate and I've not been able to access the Gorham paper collection, but this work is a large and unique work from a very prominent company. Right now Wikipedia's coverage of such art is very poor, but this work is given added importance by being on the national register. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• @ChrisGualtieri: Thanks for these explanations. I've tried to explain further above my reasoning about the changes I've requested. Take a look and see what you think. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Jackyd101: I tried addressing you issues. I made the language clear on the allegory. It is a significant example of the statuary produced by the Gorham Manufacturing Company. is not accurate. It is historically significant because it is a Gorham work and serves as a tangible piece of history. In explaining the statue I'd say, "Liberty represents eleven years of work by the citizens of Pawtucket to commemorate the Civil War service, it is a good example of the dynamic sculpture and it was cast by the Gorham Manufacturing Company." It is not being compared to or serving as a pinnacle of the company's work - so it is inappropriate to word it as such. Put another way, it is like a work of Michelangelo - it doesn't matter if it is a masterpiece or a sketch, the connection is significant. Also - Brutus (Michelangelo) is a sad stub for such a good work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• @ChrisGualtieri: I can see you've tried - still doesn't sit right with me. The issue here is that I know who Michelangelo is but I've never heard of the Gorham Manufacturing Company. If I haven't, then its a good bet that a lot of the people who read this article won't have either and the significance will be lost on them (I've now read the GMC article to see what the fuss was about, but we shouldn't expect everyone to do that). Perhaps phrasing it "It is also historically significant for its association with the Gorham Manufacturing Company, an prominent Rhode Island producer of high quality silverware and bronze statuary." would be more accessible--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Jackyd101: - Good point. Done. Westerly granite is probably the same way.... internationally famous, but obscure to so many. You know about Carrara marble right? The piece of marble for Michaelangelo's David was from Fantiscritti quarries in Miseglia... it is quite a story an interesting one (not on Wikipedia), but the marble is of inferior quality. Such famous works get all the fun research, but Liberty is a good work and I hope you liked reading the article and reviewing it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• @ChrisGualtieri: I certainly have enjoyed it, and I'm sorry it took so long for someone to review it. Interesting story about the marble - I didn't know that. One of the beauties of Wikipedia is that we get to tell these stories to the world. One last issue and then I'll promote. Can you cite in the text which organisation (I assume the NRoHP) considers it historically significant? Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

- @Jackyd101: I don't entirely get what you are asking because you are asking something that seems really strange. Anyone can submit to the register, this is sent to the State Historic Preservation Office (each being unique) and they review the nomination. If they recommend the listing it is sent to the Keeper of the National Register - the decider of listings. This person is under the National Park Service. Typically - you have local interest -> confirmed significant by the state level and then recommended and approved by the Keeper. This provides essentially two checks against insignificant properties from being listed. Generally, they follow local, state and national-level importance. The nitty-gritty details are that the work is important on the "state-wide" level under Criterion A - "Event," the property must make a contribution to the major pattern of American history.

To explain A - this is the "historically significant" part. Because it documents the citizen's 11 year plan to erect the monument, the design was significant and representative. Now... more... it is under F: "A property whose sole or primary function is commemorative or in which the commemorative function is of primary significance." This is the whole "despite being comemorative" it has to be significant in its own right. This is why the "significance" section is normally split off, but it is a lot of technical jargon which requires lots of context to explain to the reader - and all to basically say "its significant". And all that really boils down to is the subjective listing no less than three groups of people have to agree on - and within a certain criteria - as to whether or not it can and should be listed. If you want me to provide a source that it is historically significant - NRHP is that source and the Keeper of the National Register is the one who made the final designation, but unlisted parties at the state and local level also had to come to this conclusion. So that is why when I write - "The sculpture was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2001." - that is in effect both the citation and the evidence (as from the nomination itself) that it is significant and is the language used in evaluating the property in the first place. Did that make sense? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• @ChrisGualtieri: OK, I'm not sure I'm explaining this very well, so I'll try again. Wikipedia needs to be accessible. This means that we shouldn't unreasonably assume knowledge on the part of a reader (as with the Gorham Company), who may be anywhere in the world. In this issue, the article assumes that a reader knows about the NRHP and understands the criteria you have laid out above, but this is in my opinion an unreasonable assumption. To resolve this issue, all you really need to do is simply add "According to the National Register of Historic Places, Liberty Arming the Patriot is historically significant as a "good representative of the character of early twentieth century figurative sculpture" and the quality of its design. It is also historically significant for its association with the Gorham Manufacturing Company, a prominent Rhode Island producer of high quality silverware and bronze statuary." [Bolding for emphasis, not for the article]. This way a reader will know whom has decided it is historically significant, and by what criteria. Does this make sense now?--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

- Done. Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)