Talk:Nuclear Energy (sculpture)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nuclear Energy (sculpture) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | A fact from Nuclear Energy (sculpture) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 July 2008, and was viewed approximately 0 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Evanmayer1. Peer reviewers: LinkageDis.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Page reorganization
editCurrently, the page has basically one large history section, which is doing the work of being a bit of history/design process of the sculpture, that of the landmark, the installation, and some about its reception. Other sculpture pages tend to go something like:
- Summary
- Design/Attributes/Construction/Maintenance/History <-- already some great info here
- Reception/Themes <-- this is my focus
- See also
I think these changes would make the page a little more readable, and I've noted some places where I'd like to add information as I find it. Let me know what you think. Evanmayer1 (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- In general, articles on Henry Moore's works are desperately in need of improvement, so you can't really go wrong by being bold and editing them. Specifically on Nuclear Energy, Roger Berthoud's biography of Moore has a section on this sculpture, which IIRC has comments both on the history of the sculpture not yet covered in the article, and on the reception of the work.
- I think that basing the structure of the article off of that of recognised sculpture articles is a good plan. AFAIK, Man Enters the Cosmos is the only Moore sculpture article to be a Good Article, and personally I think that could do with some work. There are a few public sculpture Featured Articles: you might look at them for inspiration. Fountain of Time and Cloud Gate are two I found from a quick look around. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment on the statement on dimensions: "The sculpture is described as 14.0 feet (4.3 m) in height and 8 feet (2.4 m) in diameter by the Smithsonian Institution[4] and it sits atop a base that is 1.5 feet (0.46 m) in height and 10 feet (3.0 m) in diameter.[1] However, the University of Chicago says it is only 12 feet (3.7 m) in height.[5] The Henry Moore Foundation lists its height at 3.66m.[3]" Since 3.66 m - 12 feet, it seems obvious that the sculpture itself is 12 feet in height and that the Smithsonian is including the base and rounding up to 14 feet. The translation of 12 feet to 3.7 m is itself rounded up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwtyler (talk • contribs) 14:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
