Template:Did you know nominations/List of public art in the City of Sydney

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator

List of public art in the City of Sydney edit

(

)

Echidna, platypus and goanna in the Tank Stream Fountain

... that the public art in Sydney includes sculptures of a boar as well as brolgas, echidnas, goannas and snakes? (pictured)?

Reviewed: Gibbs surround
Comment: Would like the article to be on the main page on 25 June

Created by Whiteghost.ink (talk). Self-nominated at 06:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC).

Umm, under which DYK eligibility criteria is this nominated? As far as I can tell it's not new (it has been expanded steadily for months), and it's not a new GA/GL. Am I missing something here? (If you reply to me, please echo me back). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It was created in my sandbox and moved to mainspace today. The DYK eligibility criteria state: "d) Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage or at articles for creation or in the Draft namespace and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace." Hence the article is new from today. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

And I thought I checked for that, must have mistyped something in my search box I guess. All right, date is fine, hook, refs, neutrality, all GTG. I'd suggest minor rewording of the hook for better prose, however, something like "that the public art in Sydney includes sculptures of a boar as well as brolgas, echidnas, goannas and snakes? (pictured)? (I cannot propose it as ALT1 as my past experience shows that this would disqualify me from the review, sigh, so if you like it and suggest it as ALT1 yourself then I can approve the alt too :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. I changed it. Good suggestion. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Artwork (2004)

ALT2: here's my suggestion for a hook, with what I think is a more easily viewable artwork at the small size the images have to be for DYK. Witty lama 12:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
... that one of the public artworks in the City of Sydney is a sign (pictured) warning about one of the other artworks?

Approved as well, and frankly, likely more interesting: statuses of animals are common enough (and the picture of the sign is more eye-catching). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Many of the sections and entries are unsourced. Per WP:DYKSG#D2, the rule of thumb is "one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro". Intelligentsium 21:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The prose paragraphs at the beginning are introduction and (as far as I'm aware) every statement of fact within them is referenced in the individual line item of the table below to which it refers. I've taken the liberty to rearrange the section headings to indicate this more clearly (diff). Witty lama 16:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the edits. As the introductory prose sections are rather lengthy, it would be nice to have some citations as well - especially to ensure that the summary is verifiable and does not contain any original synthesis (for instance, claims like "Recurring themes include flora, children and classical or abstract allusion" and "Some (such as The Offerings of Peace and The Offerings of War) employ classical references to convey an abstract meaning; others (such as Research) use abstracted forms to convey an idea.") There seem to be a few entries in the table that lack citations, such as Willy Willy, Wave Machine, and New Constellation. Also, a few of the works appear to be inside buildings - can you comment on whether the photographs are in compliance with Australia's freedom of panorama laws? Intelligentsium 02:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Intelligentsium: Because this nomination has been approved by both Piotrus (above) and Hawkeye7 (diff), and that these comments are about suggested improvements rather than meeting minimum standards for DYK - can I suggest that you write these on the article talkpage instead and they can be discussed/addressed in the normal wiki-way. Witty lama 16:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The DYK requirements state that the article must be within policy. The table entries should have citations per Verifiability, and analysis such as "Some (such as The Offerings of Peace and The Offerings of War) employ classical references to convey an abstract meaning; others (such as Research) use abstracted forms to convey an idea." needs to be cited to conform to No original research. I don't consider the image issue an obstacle as I doubt there is a copyright violation since FOP laws are fairly lax, but just to make sure I've posted to the article talk. Intelligentsium 22:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I've taken a second look. It is true that the introduction and 10% or so of the entries are unreferenced. I still think this is borderline, but yes, it would be very helpful to see citations for "Summary" and to ensure that each entry has a reference. An example of an unreferenced entry would be "John Christie Wright Memorial Fountain". They are few, so I missed them last time. Thank you for the second and third opinions. Ping if if those issues are addressed, or reasons are provided why they cannot be. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

1) With regards to citations in the Summary section:

My understanding of the lead/introduction section is that it should summarise information that is presented below (which is why the policy is that the intro doesn’t need footnotes). Therefore, all of the statements in the summary are rephrasing things that are said about the artworks in the comments below, and also that each of the statements in the summary lists the specific artwork where that statement is referenced. You have specifically referred to “The Offerings of Peace" and "The Offerings of War”, and “Research” so I have just now improved the comment section of both of those to state more explicitly what is summarised above and I have also improved the quality of their footnotes. Furthermore, I have removed the "Summary" section heading to make it more clear that this text is intended to be part of the lead - summarising the whole article's contents.

2) With regards to the as-yet-uncited artworks in the table:

Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy is that “All content must be ‘’verifiable’’”. Only BLPs have the higher standard that statements ought to be "verified" immediately. Since all of the items currently missing a reference do at least have a photograph (and many also have a geocode), the artwork demonstrably "exists" and the statements in the comment column are able to be verified, even when they are not yet verified. So, since this is a DYK nomination, not a Good Article review, I believe that this list with over 150 footnotes to historical and contemporary sources is well above the standard for proving Verifiability, not only for the list as a whole and also for the individual works in the list. By my count there are currently only ~~nine~~ eight items on this list of 123 artworks that have as yet no footnote. You must agree this is a very small, and decreasing, proportion.

Notwithstanding all the above, I am of course trying to add footnotes to all of the items. For example, I have added two references for the “John Christie Wright Memorial Fountain” which you mentioned. Some references are more elusive than others but I am steadily decreasing the number of un-cited entries (check the article history). Whiteghost.ink (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've just found refs for three more of the previously un-ref'd ones, bringing the total number of works missing a footnote down to 5 (diff). Witty lama 17:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Only two artworks without inline citations. Will keep working on them. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I think the concerns have now been well enough addressed to allow the article to appear as DYK on the day requested. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Whiteghost.ink: Two (non-critical) entries in the table without citations is not a deal-breaker; if you wanted to continue the review you should have pinged me. I assumed you were still working on the last two. I'm more concerned that several descriptions in the table seem to be almost-verbatim lifted from sources without being quoted, or only partially being quoted, for example:
  - Southern Cross: "Inspired by one of the earliest known images of the constellation, a wood engraving in the rare manuscript Lettera di Andrea Corsali made in Florence in 1516"
  - Source: "inspired by one of the earliest known images of the Southern Cross: a wood engraving in the rare manuscript Lettera di Andrea Corsali, made in Florence in 1516"
  - #Twenty-first century: "Tom Bass described himself as a maker of totems – symbolic, widely recognisable forms that embody social, cultural and spiritual meanings for a community – for a city, a corporate client or humanity in general"
  - Source: "The artist habitually describes himself as a maker of totems - symbolic, widely recognisable forms that embody social, cultural and spiritual meanings for a community - for a city, a corporate client or humanity in general" (is this meant to be a quote? Note that this isn't a quote from the artist in the source so using quotes would also be misleading)
  - P&O Fountain: "A wall sculpture that was satirised by a notorious Oz magazine cover, that nevertheless "enjoys a kind of celebrity status as a landmark.""
  - Source: "his wall fountain on Hunter Street, satirised as a urinal by a notorious Oz magazine cover in 1963, enjoys a kind of celebrity status as a landmark."
  - J.F. Archibald Memorial Fountain: "...fountain constructed to commemorate the association between Australia and France in World War I"
  - Source: "...fountain was built in Hyde Park North in 1932 to commemorate the association between Australia and France in World War I."
  - Wurrungwuri: "Sculpture in two parts ... One part is made of 260 sandstone blocks in wave formation and the other part is a monolith built from 16,000 threaded quartz pebbles, decorated with a pattern from a rare Aboriginal shield – the Sydney shield"
  - Source: "Consisting of two parts, one made of 260 sandstone blocks in wave formation and weighing 350 tonnes, ... The other part is a monolith built from 16,000 threaded quartz pebbles and decorated with a pattern from a rare Aboriginal shield - the Sydney shield"
  - Busby's Bore Fountain: "Commemorates the Busby Bore, a tunnel built to bring water from the Lachlan Swamp (now Centennial Park) to Hyde Park. The bore, built by convicts from 1827–1837, was Sydney's sole source of water until 1859"
  - Source: "commemorates the Busby Bore, a tunnel built to bring water from the Lachlan Swamp (now Centennial Park) to Hyde Park ... The bore was Sydney’s sole source of water until 1859"

Intelligentsium 01:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

All of the parapharasing noted has now been rewritten or quoted directly. This was a work in progress for such a long list that required photos as well as references and was being done at the same time as geocodes were also being added. Intelligentsium: Detailed assistance is appreciated, but for the purposes of a DYK nomination it is not required that an article be so perfectly complete - even though this is the goal and such improvements will help for reaching Good Article status. You removed it from the prep area after it was approved but did not return it to the queue, so its requested timeslot was lost and the nomination disappeared. Hawkeye7: I would like to now re-add this nomination to the queue and request that it appear on the main page on the afternoon (Sydney time) of Thursday August 4. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I understand that an article does not have to be perfect for DYK, but close paraphrasing is a major issue and potential copyright violation, not something that can be waved away by WP:WIP. The article could not be returned to the queue while this issue was still outstanding. That being said if you would prefer that Hawkeye7 continue this review, I will respect your wishes. Intelligentsium 18:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Hawkeye7 promoted this nomination at a time when it had a

icon active. This is not ever supposed to happen, and to my mind disqualifies him from taking any further action on this nomination. We'll need to find a new reviewer to approve it, if you would like someone other than Intelligentsium to proceed, and someone else entirely will eventually do the promotion. Whiteghost.ink, may I ask what the special occasion is that has you requesting August 4 for the promotion date? We're generally happy to allow such requests for special occasions, events, anniversaries, and so on, but not general date requests without such linkage. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

New reviewer needed. The review should include checks on whether previous issues have been fully addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting a new reviewer BlueMoonset, I understand your reasoning for wanting a new person who has not looked at this article before. As for the requested appearance date of 4th August (afternoon, Sydney time), it is because that is the time that I will be leading a university class in Sydney on writing about aesthetics and the built environment. One of the course requirements is to write a WP article. It would be motivating and helpful to show the students the article's appearance on the main page during the class, especially since the items on its list are offered as potential articles. I understand that this is not a date of significance to the article itself, so if the request is not acceptable then I am happy for it to appear at any other time. Sincerely, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

In general, an article like this would be judged on its lead section for character count and citations. However, since the citations are all in the chart, each line item is being evaluated for character count, referencing, and all the regular WP criteria. Earwigs does not return any copyvios. However, spot checks are revealing citations that do not align with the information in the article, and information that does not align with the sources. I started going through this and making corrections, but such a job is too big for one reviewer. Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

- On the face of it the article looks good; however, considering all the previous issues raised by previous reviewers - issues haven't been sufficiently resolved. Each of the list items only have a brief description and I have found that many of these have been copied and pasted from source. Earwig doesn't bring them up as high likelihood due to there only being a couple of sentences used from each reference.Example. I don't think the nominator understands the seriousness of copying text. As a number of book sources are used, I am concerned that Earwig hasn't detected a vast number of other violations. I will shortly be adding a tag to the article to explain my concerns to reader (I just need to find the right one). Note to nominator; you should not be directly copying ANY text, EVER. You need to write it in your own words, if this is not possible you need to be clear it is a quotation. You have done a good job on this article overall and have done all the research; you just need to look over everything again to ensure you haven't violated copyright laws. ツStacey (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Staceydolxx: See Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Yoninah (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
These critiques are getting pretty absurd on this DYK... I've now made minor changes to the elements that are indicated in that example provided, but further commentary should be made on the article's talkpage rather than here. Witty lama 12:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Staceydolxx: As far as writing articles goes, this one is far from "just lazy". Not only are there hundreds of hours work in the article, there are dozens of hours of walking. The research includes sourcing and meticulously verifying information via library research, as well as with curators and guardians by email and telephone, in person on foot with the intention of providing readers as many sources (primary, secondary and tertiary) as possible. Although incomplete when first nominated and with more yet to do, it was developed well beyond the level usually required for DYK. I will continue to develop it but I withdraw its nomination. Whiteghost.ink (talk)