Talk:Darlington Memorial Fountain/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Pbritti (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: APK (talk · contribs) 09:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 17:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! APK, you already know me and my reviews, and I figured I ought to review this fountain that I've passed a few times during my travels through DC. While I'm certain that we can get this to a GA, I noticed a couple minor issues when I did a brief read through last week when searching for possible articles to review. Together, these issues shouldn't really pose an issue. I have another review I'll wrap up the first stage of tonight, so expect some preliminary comments within the next 24 hours. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for another review! APK hi :-) (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Sorry for the late start. Let's get going with some initial comments! These are surface-level observations, with a couple more specific comments based on sourcing issues. The biggest takeaway for now: Darlington should get his own article using the biography in this article and the biography section should thus be cut down. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Please note that the memorial is dedicated to Joseph James Darlington in the lead paragraph.
The biography of Darlington is a bit too detailed in the lead. I suggest cutting but he became depressed after the death of his second wife
Note MOS:ENFROM for the parenthetical containing Darlington's birth and death years
C. Paul Jennewein is overlinked in the lead's third paragraph
Please note in the lead who specifically owns/maintains the memorial today, as transferred ownership to the local government does not indicate if this is the D.C. city government, some subordinate local government, or a specific D.C. agency
- Done APK hi :-) (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

Darlington definitely deserves his own article. You could just copy-and-paste the biography from this article and call that a decent Start- or C-class article. The reliance on a single (albeit massive) source in this article is a superficial issue, as I've found a couple additional sources that could further establish his notability: Herndon Historical Society, Darlington School
Adding on that, I'm a bit surprised the Darlington School, which was named in Darlington's honor, isn't mentioned in this biography
- @Pbritti: How much of the bio do you think should be left in this article? APK hi :-) (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

All images have either had any claim to copyright waived or are now in the public domain due to age, so no copyvio concerns
All images are of a superior quality and contribute substantially to the article by illustrating elements of the subject
I would like to see something like "Joseph James Darlington (1849 – 1920), to whom the memorial is dedicated, was a successful legal scholar" in the caption of the image of him
Darlington's image might be reasonably moved to the biography section
An indication of the orientation of the view in the wide photo of the memorial should be added to the caption
- Done APK hi :-) (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial

Some members of the public and Darlington's former Baptist friends were appalled at the public display of nudity. The citation for this statement is DC Preservation League 2018. However, the mortified Baptists are not referenced in this source. They do appear in Kelly 2016, however they are not described as "Darlington's former Baptist friends". Instead, John Ball is described as a Baptist pastor but no relationship with Darlington is established. Briggs is only described as one of Darlington's former pastors, but not as a friend. The paragraph reads: "The Rev. John E. Briggs, pastor of Fifth Baptist Church, where Darlington worshiped, denied that he had termed the statue a 'blasphemy' but said that Darlington wouldn't have liked it."
Darlington's pastor, John E. Briggs, said if he was still alive, Darlington would not approve of the sculpture leaves "he" a bit vague; I'd prefer you just cut "said if he was still alive".
- Done APK hi :-) (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full review

I apologize for the delay; this will be performed in the next few hours. Your responses are much appreciated and I'll engage with them. I'll start with a source review, which will take the longest. The article currently passes the standards for images, copyright, stability, and (with minimal reservations) scope. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Regarding the Records of the Columbia Historical Society source, I would encourage that you remove the page numbers from the {{cite journal}} template and use the {{rp}} template to indicate the specific pages that verify statements made in the article. A 31-page range unfortunately does not lend itself to WP:V. While GACR accommodates citations that don't present specific pages, it's best practice to reduce ranges to within five pages. I will not fail the nomination on this point, but this is a recommendation for further potential GAs.
There were six submissions is sourced to The National Commission of Fine Arts: Ninth Report and WashPo. The WashPo article indicates a half-dozen sculptors submitted designs, but the National Commission of Fine Arts reported three submissions. To accurately reflect the sources, I would recommend rewriting to something like "Six sculptors submitted three designs".
Both the Edgefield Advertiser and the The National Commission of Fine Arts: Ninth Report references are not really suited to having archived links (the former is a Wikipedia Library-accessible item, the latter is a Google Books scan), so I recommend removing them.
The Edgefield Advertiser is a remarkably handy source and it's unfortunate that some of that article is obscured or missing in the scan. It notes that the fountain was, at least for some time in 1922, conceived as a drinking foundation. Consider adding in that detail.
with a few minor exceptions The word "minor" should be removed on NOR grounds. The same applies to considered very appropriate since, with "chosen because" a good replacement. Yes, those are nitpicks. Sorry.
The Nov 6, 1923, Evening Star source is another strong reference. It acknowledges Charles C. Glover as the honorary chairman of the 100-person Darlington memorial committee, which is a detail worth mentioning.

Ok, I'll do some more reviewing later today, but I need to take a break to rest my eyes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done APK hi :-) (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.