Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Statue of John Bunyan, Bedford/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2014 (diff).

Statue of John Bunyan, Bedford

Nominator(s): Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

This article is about The Statue of John Bunyan, Bedford. The statue is of a giant in English and Christian literature, was produced by a significant sculptor and artist, was commissioned by a notable member of the nobility, and has been much remarked upon in the 140 years since its unveiling. The unveiling itself was a nine-days wonder. Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

Comment by Cwmhiraeth

My immediate impression of this article concerns comprehensiveness and balance. Here is a statue erected in Bedford to John Bunyan, but who is the man? Why is he famous and what connection does he have with Bedford? As far as I can see, there is not even a wikilink to the Wikipedia article on him. I would also expect to see more about the sculptor and the creation of the statue. At the moment the article is unbalanced because it concentrates on the unveiling ceremony almost to the exclusion of anything else. I would oppose this article becoming a featured article in its present state. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, my concern was not to duplicate material on Bunyan and Boehm, but there is no reason that significant sections cannot be written on both. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

I guess some duplication is unavoidable, I'll have another look in a few days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose and comprehensiveness and other things:

We have nothing to explain who Bunyan was, why Bedford might want a statue of him, what the significance of "The Pilgrim's Progress", whether the sculptor was indeed "significant" as you say in your nomination... Perhaps a "Background" section to start with, with sub-sections about Bunyan, Bunyan's links to Bedford (if not already explained), the sculptor, the commissioning nobleman, etc. Then describe the statue; then the opening ceremony (in moderation - this is an article about the statue, not the ceremony); then subsequent commments about the statue etc
You say that it has been much remarked upon in the 140 years since its unveiling, but there's nothing about that in the article. What do critics say about it now? Is it listed or similar?
We have an opening "sentence" that reads "The Statue of John Bunyan on St Peter's Green, Bedford, Bedfordshire, England is a bronze statue of John Bunyan, sculpted by Sir Joseph Edgar Boehm, it was erected in 1874, and unveiled on 10 June of that year." - that's not good writing
We have a red link Bunyan Museum but a "See also" link to John Bunyan Museum - are there two museums here, or one? Why the link to High Holborn
We have a red link category
An external link that is in fact being used as a reference and should be included there, and another external link of no relevance to this article
Poor image choice and presentation - why do we need Bunyan's will, or two photos of the statute in what is a very short article? The text is sandwiched by the images throughout.

And that's before we get to issues such as correct italics, whether it's "The Pilgrim's Progress", the "Pilgrim's Progress" or Pilgrims Progress... I suggest you withdraw this, rewrite and expand the article, then visit peer review before coming back to FAC. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry Rich but this isn't even GA class yet, in fact it would need a fair bit of work to be B class. Nowhere near FA level. As Bencherlite suggested it should be withdrawn asap.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too brief and not fully researched for an FA. A quick closure would be my advice here.--Retrohead (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.