Wikipedia:Featured article review/Henry Moore/archive1

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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [1].

Henry Moore edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Solipsist (talk · contribs), RobertG (talk · contribs), Teapotgeorge (talk · contribs), WP England, WP Yorkshire, WP Bio, WP Visual arts

Despite the fact that I love Moore (one of my WP:GAs is Man Enters the Cosmos and I created Nuclear Energy (Henry Moore sculpture) and Large Interior Form), this article no longer is up to snuff. It would be classified as a C-Class article now upon independent review, IMO. Even though I love Moore, I prefer to research topics I can research fairly completely over the internet. My experience with art is that to properly research things I have had to take many trips to the library. I have a lot on my plate and hope someone else will step forward and improve this article. The article has very few inline citations and many are not in modern footnote format. Some images may be questionably licensed, but that is not my area.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, is your only concern cites and images, or did you read the article. My suspicion is that you came across it while brousing the arts section of the FA page looking for articles with more images that in Crown Fountain. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the article in about a year (about the time I created Man Enters the Cosmos (WP:GA)). But it has not gotten much better since then in terms of several issues. Believe me this article is well below standard. I did come across it while comparing FAs against my current FAC, but that does not mean this is any less below standard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM I have been watching problems with this article for a year and a half since I first noticed its deficiencies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I always knew this would happen someday, and I suppose we might as well get it over with now. If its cites only is the prob; easily fixed. Can you calarify on this, as you have taken the responsibilty to nom for a delist. And please stop mentioning articles you've created; they have nil relevance here. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know they have little relevance, but I feel very guilty nominating the article. I have not taken responsibility for the article. It will now be monitored by the FAR directors, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK derivative works law is the key one for most of the photos; I am relieved to find this:

"Under UK copyright law, there is specific statutory provision made for sculptures permanently situated in a public place or to which the public has access. It is one of the clearest exceptions to the basic copyright position (that no-one can reproduce copyright work without the express consent of the copyright owner). Just like works of architecture under UK and US copyright law, outdoor sculptures under UK law can be reproduced two-dimensionally, even be filmed or broadcast/transmitted, without the copyright owner’s consent; and such reproductions can also be used commercially without consent." in a blog here - seems sound. Also see here. Clearly the citations are not up to today's standards. Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove them. Johnbod, the gallery seems a little unweildly; could you whittle down the no of images. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various US images removed - now a 2 row gallery, which I think is about right. But still US pics left; I need to check other countries legal situation. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see little wrong with this other than the lack of citations. The prose still reads well though there are a few recent additions that could be trimmed: the theft of the statue in 2005 particularly. That does not impact on Moore himself, it should be (and is copied almost verbatim) in Henry Moore Foundation.
I think the gallery should go, a link to commons should be acceptable.
I could probably help out with the cites, I seem to remember I picked up a few books the last time I was at the Foundation. I will try and dig them out. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree re gallery. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found this article to be a little dense, the article needs an infobox and some tightening. I moved one of the two lead images further down in the text to the sculpture section. I'm currently working on rewriting the image captions, and a little CE including adding a few live links. Modernist (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery seems OK to me also, it's useful. Modernist (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the infobox and combined the galleries..Modernist (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better now. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please complete the notifications correctly? The correct message is obtained via {{subst:FARMessage/Henry Moore}}; see the FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who says that this article should now be graded "C class" ("useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study")—well, that's reason for throwing out this case without examining its merits. Whiskeydog (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article could still uses some work. If each paragraph is suppose to present a new topic, how can we say an article is complete with so many completely uncited paragraphs. Many paragraps are largely uncited with only the first sentence cited. The article is not so safe, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article need an image check? I am not sure what needs FURs, but I believe many of his sculptures should have them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above - the UK ones have no artist's copyright. The US ones will probably be removed. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you add FURs to the US ones.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult I think, precisely because so many copyright-free UK ones exist. But anyone who wants to, please have a go. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that my original contributions still form the majority of this article, but I haven't spent much effort in editing Wikipedia for the last two years and haven't kept track of any changes to this article either.

I think that it is a good thing that Wikipedia's standards improve over time, but I won't be taking the time to go through every article I've written in order to add citations. It used to be claimed that editors shouldn't worry about spelling mistakes and the like. If an article was deficient in some way, other editors would come along and fix it up. Some years ago, that was kind of true, but it seems to be far less true these days. So good luck with making any changes that you think are necessary.

One other point of concern, with the article stands at the moment it is rather confusing not to show an example of Moore's sculpture near the head of the article. There used to be one as the lead image but it has been moved to make way for the portrait of Moore himself. Its good to have the portrait, but its not so good that a reader has to get past a Michelangelo, a Nok sculpture and a Toltec-Maya figure before seeing anything that is recognisably a Henry Moore. Most readers don't get as far as paging down past the head of the article, so most readers won't have a clue what a Henry Moore looks like. -- Solipsist (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had thought that too. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to lose the Michelangelo. It doesn't add much to the readers understanding. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All US images removed, although an FU justification for the Chicago U one could be made, as it is discussed. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the appropriateness of this FAR nom discussion by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs). I also agree with TonyTheTiger that this article would not pass a WP:GA review in its present state, and is also not up to current WP:FA standards and would most certainly encounter difficulty at a WP:FAC discussion. Cirt (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove.~~ Per the (1c) and (3) issues and my comment above. Cirt (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though I think this currently fails FA, it is so close that I would not demote below GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For that to occur this article would need to go through the GA review process. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...work is ongoing, you know. Neither (1c) nor (3) are so lacking that we need be so trigger happy, or hysterical. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ceoil, progress is being made, and the article is improving again....Modernist (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out my Remove above per comments by Ceoil (talk · contribs) and Modernist (talk · contribs) that progress is being made/work being done to further improve the article. Cirt (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cirt. Ceoil ^sláinte 10:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All image issues raised have been addressed. The only sculptures potentially subject to derivative copyright remaining meet the legal requirements of the countries they were taken in: UK, Canada, Australia & Germany. See the Commons policy Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although this is not required, many artists have their own templates (see for example Template:Matisse or Template:Claude Monet). Does anyone feel comfortable enough with this subject to make a template?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good idea, but I personally wouldn't have the knowledge to put it together. Modernist might be the best editor to take it on. Ceoil ^sláinte 18:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I think Tyrenius (talk · contribs) is the best editor for creating templates....Modernist (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should at least be a Category:Sculptures by Henry Moore, which there seems not to be. Any template should be at the bottom of the article, or we'll have even less space for pictures. How many articles are there? I'm not sure a template is justified myself. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnbod (talk · contribs)...I was surprised by the request given the lack of material...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a navigation box, because there's nothing to put in it. There is not a series of articles on individual sculptures and other associated topics. Likewise, I don't see the need for Category:Sculptures by Henry Moore: there is a link to Commons:Category:Henry Moore. Ty 13:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't seen that - it should be renamed to Category:Sculptures by Henry Moore on normal categorization principles though. This article isn't even in it! Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and Commons are two separate systems with their own categories. This article will not be in a category on Commons: only material on Commons will. Maybe post on my talk page if you need further explanation. Ty 14:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought (from your comment) it was a WP category. There should certainly be one of these for the sculpture articles - whyever not? That a Commons cat exists is no replacement. There are a number of articles. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Henry Moore sculptures set up with 3 - are there any more? All these are, oddly enough, in Chicago :) Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise there were any articles on his sculptures. I guess that might justify a nav box. Ty 22:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to vote keep, but I can't yet because about a half dozen paragraphs continue to have no citation and each paragraph should present a new topic if this is arranged well. That is way too many for me to vote keep without good reason. As I have said above, this could probably use a navbox template. Like I said above I would still support this as a GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want both shorter para, and a ref per para, and you want more templates. Hmm, you are free to vote remove if you want, not going to bend to that kind of formulism. Next you'll be asking for more blue links. Ceoil ^sláinte 10:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation template done. If the same ref applies to different paras, why not just add the same one to the end of the different paras. If a longer para gets split in two, just duplicate the ref. Ty 11:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicating refs for split paras is pointless and indicating towarads a meaningless yardstick: one ref per para. Euf. Also I find short paras an annoying panereing to mtv-like short attention spans. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on that template! I think a few more refs won't hurt. The text seems to be shaping up and really covers the territory fairly well; maybe the article is a FA after all. Modernist (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a few more refs won't hurt? Not exactly a considered openion. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All material in the article should be clearly referenced. It should be obvious to the reader which references apply to which material. At the minimum there should be a ref at the end of each paragraph, provided that all the material in that paragraph is derived from the given ref. I prefer often to ref each sentence, and sometimes sections of a sentence, because I often incorporate material from multiple refs in a para or even in a sentence. Ty 12:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand: Accepted. Ceoil ^sláinte 12:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the template because it directs you to many of the American sculptures whose images are not properly licensed for inclusion in the article. I still see five paragraphs without any citation anywhere in the paragraph. Although I would not nominate an article of the current quality level that only has five paragraphs without refs, I will withhold a keep vote. Again, I still support it as a GA if it fails, which probably means it will pass.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a couple of refs, hmm gotta consider some moore now...I agree about short paragraphs being MTV like, the text is improving, quality matters...to be moore clear I agree with Ceoil about the paragraphs and the arbitrary marching orders....seem somewhat contrived. Modernist (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Modernist ;) But would you mind adding author, publication, and publication and retrieval dates to the refs. This seems do-able again. Ceoil ^sláinte 12:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no - the refs are to the Tate and they speak for themselves.....Modernist (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No your missing the point: Look at ref 38: "Henry Moore". Tate Magazine Issue 6. Retrieved on 12 September, 2008. Ceoil ^sláinte 12:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I added Chris Turner's name....Modernist (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've formatted the ref. Ty 12:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although my crteria for FA status are a polar opposite to TonyTheTiger. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article has been improved...It is far more interesting and complete than it was in early August, although I'd still like to see more of his work. I vote ~~Keep~~ also. Changed my mind, I want to think on this a little more...Modernist (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the lead there is a ref per paragraph......the lead has one ref.Modernist (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to cite leads. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has improved enormously my only reservation now has to do with the limitation on the images available to us. Tyrenius's template links help. Moore was a great sculptor and we aren't conveying that convincingly enough through the currently available works. Although I think the article is very close to FA...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He, if anybody can fix that, its you! Ceoil ^sláinte 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the issue of Fair Use of pieces outside the UK. I'll see what I can try...as I say I think a few more sculptures are needed.Modernist (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would be appreciated. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said somewhere above, a FU rationale could be done for Nuclear Energy, which is discussed in the text sufficiently. I don't see the current picture selection as inadequate myself though. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added four pieces - three from the 1960s including Large Arch and a piece from 1985...I have no problem voting Keep now. I think the pieces are important because seeing the work helps...the images all Creative Commons ShareAlike. Modernist (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist, do you mind one more pass for ref formatting consistency? Marskell (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your best, Modernist (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are several issues in the citations that should be cleaned up before we let this one out the door. Are dates linked or delinked in the citations? Is the date format US-style or international (I see both). Book titles and periodicals (newspapers, journals) are in italics, websites are not (needs fixing throughout). For some reason there are quotation marks everywhere in the citations, unclear what the style is but usually newspaper and journal articles only are in quotations. One pass through for consistency ought to do it. Nice work !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've seen ye have busy, thanks; I think I caught most of the stragglers. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job...Modernist (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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