Talk:Edward Ardolino

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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Edward Ardolino sculpted and carved Art Deco architectural works which were part of the central Los Angeles Public Library and the Nebraska State Capitol? ...that Edward Ardolino sculpted and carved Art Deco architectural works for the central Los Angeles Public Library and the Nebraska State Capitol? Source: Aumonier, here, there, there, there, there, there and finally
  • ALT1:... that architectural sculptor Edward Ardolino was responsible for stone carvings at the National Archives Building, Christ Church Cranbrook, Princeton University Chapel and the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, among others? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Leuthen

Moved to mainspace by E54495a (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: You need to say WHEN it was moved to mainspace, especially when there are many hundreds of edits, as here. It was 21 Feb in this case. I won't review but some of the sculpture terminology is oddly used. One caption says the piece was "sculpted" by A and "carved" by B. The distinction needs to be clarified - presumably B was working from A's modello. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply User:Johnbod Moved February 21, 2020. Nominated for DYK February 28, 2020. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• I will review, but first, it need copyediting and the bare links need to be converted to references. --evrik ^(talk) 19:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

No bare links. What copy editing do you want? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• also, there is an unsourced statement. --evrik ^(talk) 04:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• evrik, I didn't see any bare links either--but I did see the need for copyedits. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe I used the link terminology incorrectly, but I went in and fixed it. New enough, long enough, 5x expansion, passes earwig, qpq done. Per my note above, there is at least one unsourced statement. Not a requiremnt, but with his body of work, are there more than two pictures of his sculptures? --evrik ^(talk) 05:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• As the first major contributor of the article Edward Ardolino who moved the article to the main space on February 21, I'm responding to the DYK nomination. Thank you for considering this article as a DYK. I have the answer to your question about the unsourced statement, plus an ALT DYK hook and two quick requests for help.

• 1)Regarding the unsourced statement under the Legacy section which says "60% of Ardolino's known works have achieved landmark or historic status or reside within an historical district," this statement was based on a simple arithmetic calculation. I believe it's stated within Wikipedia's practices or policies on sourcing that simple arithmetic calculations (like percents) do not constitute primary research and are allowed. I calculated the 60% by first totaling the number of his works followed by superscript 'A', plus all 4 of the works in the Federal Triangle section, plus all of those under the Landmark/Historic Works section and using this as the numerator. Then I totaled all the works listed in the article and used that as the denominator. The numerator was divided by the denominator to get the percent, about 60%.
• 2)I would like to suggest an ALT DYK hook, as follows: "DYK that architectural sculptor Edward Ardolino was responsible for stone carvings at the National Archives Building, Christ Church Cranbrook, Princeton University Chapel and the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, among others?" Citations for all of these are within the article. I can give you the Reference numbers if you wish.

•  Done I preferred the original hook, which is supported by many sources. Better understood landmarks. Fewer readers know the places listed in the alternate. But I am grateful for this review, and this is not worth arguing over. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• 3) I made a few revisions within the last several hours, among them, I added the URL for Ref. 14, Ardolino's NYT obituary via Proquest to make it accessible for readers. If I have done this incorrectly, could you kindly assist by adjusting it as needed? I noticed my other Proquest URLs have been adjusted. Or, must we say Subscription required?
• 4) Finally, I'm requesting help with one simple (but apparently not for me!) correction. Under the section Other Works, the 10th entry down is National State Bank. At the end of the line there is an asterisk. The asterisk is supposed to be an 'H', which refers to a Note, already entered. Can you kindly change the asterisk to a superscript 'H'? (I see from other entries a code is used that consists of [Efn-ua], but I don't know how to employ it. Thank you.

•  Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• If there is anything else I can do to help, please advise me. E54495a (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help on Point 4.

• About the ALT DYK, I made the ALT suggestion because the first one is not entirely accurate: "Ardolino sculpted and carved . . ." No, there is confusion here between sculpting and carving. Lee Lawrie is credited as the sculptor for these two buildings. There is no doubt about that. Edward Ardolino, Inc. is the carver in both instances, but by looking closely at the article, you see that one of his staff is credited elsewhere with carving the ten exterior panels on the Nebraska State Capitol. I chose the four buildings I did because there is documentation of Ardolino doing the actual carving, i.e., National Archives: he was invited to sign the pediment by the sculptor Weinman; Cranbrook: I used a photo of Ardolino on the scaffolding performing the carving as a reference; Princeton University Chapel: the chief architect lauds his work as the best anywhere and a University publication credits him as the sole carver, both statements cited in the article; Cathedral of St. John the Divine: NY Times articles note his presence onsite. For all these reasons, I ask you to reconsider substituting the ALT DYK hook I presented. E54495a (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry, I guess I misread you on the ALT DYK hook. I thought you were holding out for the original hook, but I believe you are willing to change to the ALTernate as I asked. Thank you. E54495a (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• I appreciate your input. I don't read all the sources in the way you do – WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth – but I defer to your judgment. I appreciate that you became actively involved in getting this through the process. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• I am requesting a new review after the recent set of edits. --evrik ^(talk) 15:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

New reviewer needed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Fresh review from scratch. Definitely long-enough, easily satisfies notability requirements. My spot check did not catch any close paraphrasing. A lot of sources are paywalled, so accepting AGF. I like the original hook, except that I would prefer "...that Edward Ardolino sculpted and carved Art Deco architectural works for the central Los Angeles Public Library and the Nebraska State Capitol?" This version is less wordy. I wouldn't hold up approval though, I'll let prep builders have the final say here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This page was moved into the main namespace on February 21, 2020.E54495a (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability/primary sources

This article is waaaaaay too reliant on primary sources, to the point that despite having over 70 citations, I don't think that the subject meets WP:GNG. Please consider paring down the citations list until it primarily includes secondary or tertiary sources, removing content as necessary if it cannot be verified in reliable secondary sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

To imagine that Edward Ardolino has not earned a spot on wikipedia is silly. This article should have been done years ago. Carptrash (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability is likely by virtue of the long list of significant works, but the primary sources issue remains. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You are suggesting that Eckert, Gurney, Aumonier, SIRIS, Smithsonian American Art Museum, Art Inventory Catalog, and The New York Times, are primary sources? With the exception of the NYT, these are among the most respected sources on the topic of sculpture, especially architectural sculpture. Carptrash (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Aumonier, Gurney, and Smithsonian are not accessible to me right now, but Art Inventory Catalog is a database entry and Eckert appears to have very little information about the subject. The manner that these sources are being used in this article is to piece together very brief mentions of the subject to assemble an account of the subject's career. The issue here isn't the prestige of the sources, but the sparsity of information, which flirts with original research to a greater deal than we should be, based on the sources that I have been able to evaluate. That having been said, if say, Gurney, has more in depth coverage of Ardolino, then I think the tag can be removed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Clearly meets WP:GNG. This primary source argument is an unsubstantiated and incredible canard. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about notability at this point, but remain concerned about the manner in which certain sources are being used, particularly in the Biography section where most of the sources are immigration records, ancestry.com, and personal correspondence written by the subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, after reading closely it seems to me you would be better satisfied if there were one single substantive biography of Ardolino somewhere already written up, that could be cited. It's the many citations to individual facts, adding up like a mosaic, that seems to bother you. Is that close to stating your issue? But notability is clearly established by the NYT obituary alone. Primary sources isn't the issue either because all of these sources I see (except for one private letter) are verifiable third-party sources that would document Ardolino, not advocate for him. Your argument is closer to a complaint about improper synthesis. I don't think that fits either. This in case notability is already reached, and the additional citations are not being stacked one way or another to push any conclusion, but simply to enhance the man's biography. Isn't that what good encyclopedists do? --Lockley (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

My main concern was the use of archival documents and fleeting mentions to furnish the Biography and Career sections, which I still believe skirt a bit too close to original research if evaluated on their own. There are additional sources that I was not able to access that appear to be more substantial, and as various editors here have vouched for them I'm willing to drop the issue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is the answer to all of your problems, and the problem indicated in the next section. "EDWARD ARDOLINO; Architectural Sculptor Dies-- Worked on Notable Buildings". The New York Times. April 13, 1945.(subscription required) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal data

Things like marriage, family, burial are missing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, lack of any links to obituaries here is glaring. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"EDWARD ARDOLINO; Architectural Sculptor Dies -- Worked on Notable Buildings". The New York Times. April 13, 1945. p. 17.(subscription required) is now cited, but I do not have access to it. I assume it would be fertilizer for many parts of the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Apparently our alert article creator had already put that reference in as <ref name=":1"> with limited access, and I had missed that. But it still needs to note (subscription required). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, again! Just want to say thanks again for supporting this page and finding new references. You actually found something I'd been seeking for years - another piece of evidence of Ardolino in Toronto in 1930. More about that below. Let's first continue our discussion from your Talk page about Reference #1, which was the NYT obituary, the same as Ref. 16 that was there from the beginning. After the revision these two references appeared next to each other at the end of the Biography section. The problem (of duplication) was marked Fixed, but unfortunately both superscripts were still visible side by side. I successfully deleted Ref. 1 from the text, but I can't delete it from the Reference List without your help. Let me say upfront I'll add the words Subscription Required to Ref 16, as you would like. Deleting Ref. 1 from the Reference List will go a long way toward allowing the other references to once again align correctly with the text. Remember, Ref. 16 was used a total of 6 times, so if we were to get rid of it instead of Ref. 1, it would cause a lot of problems.

Another example of a problem is that now there are two Reference 19s in the text after the words Nebraska State Capitol at the end of the Section headed Career, paragraph 2. I can't delete one of the 19s without the citation disappearing entirely from the Reference List. Maybe you can manage it. As you can see, some of this is now in a tangle. Perhaps the problem is that I started the page with Visual Edit, and you used Source Editing. I don't know, but if you would be kind enough to fix the items in the problem list below, we can get things matching up again.

I'm sure we can work together on this for a better result. For example, the new reference you discovered and placed at #9, Who's Who in Canada, 1930-31, fills a gap I've been trying to plug for years. Although part of Ardolino's page in the actual book is veiled, I can see his studio address matches the one printed in the Toronto Star newspaper along with a statement that Ardolino was preparing to carve the Canadian Bank of Commerce. The only problem was that placing the Who's Who book on the Wiki page right after the Menconi business arrangement of 1916 was not the right place. Edward was operating under his own name by 1921, and the Toronto Bank of Commerce wasn't even begun until 1929. So, I moved this Toronto Who's Who (published in 1930), along with the Toronto Star announcement, to support Ardolino's 1929-31 work on the Canadian Bank of Commerce.

I'd be happy to work on the remainder of the Reference List in conjunction with you, as I've been researching Ardolino for 15 years and have a good understanding of his life and work.

Here's the problem list, continued:

Currently I'm requesting your help in deleting Ref. 1 as I'm unable to do it. Taking it out will assist the references to once again align with the text. Remember, Ref. 16 (the NYT obituary) was used several times throughout the page, and deleting it will necessitate a lot of fixes.

Similarly, Ref 14 is defined in a template or block, and "for now can only be previewed in the Source Mode." So right now I don't know what it says. If you delete it and send me the information, I can enter it in the right place using Visual Editor.

Following Ref 46 or so in the text, the letters ref appear, part of the computer entry code, I'm sure, that should be invisible to the reader. Again, if you delete that but send me the citation, I can re-enter it with Visual Editor.

I don't know why Refs. 34 and 35 are used twice. They were used only once in the original version.

It appears citations that came from books like Aumonier, Gurney, and others were pulled from the Reference List completely and only appear in the Bibliography. I don't believe this is the best way to do it. When references are used multiple times I think they should appear in the Reference List in shortened versions, and running the cursor over the superscript in the text should reveal the entire citation. I'd like to return to that format, found in a previous revision, but need help doing it. Maybe someone out there can help us.

An added book entitled, The Los Angeles Central Library, is listed in the Bibliography (and References) with two authors, whereas the actual cover of the book shows only one.

There may be a couple of other issues, but right now the remainder is too confusing to sort out. Once the above is done, it should be less confusing and I can take another look at it.

Should we try to engage help from another editor, or are you OK with it?

Thanks! E54495a (talk) 05:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The NYT problem was fixed.

That note 14 is now inaccessible is no reason to delete the reference. See WP:AGF and WP:Linkrot.

The authors were listed in the Los Angeles library book. And they appear if you click on the ISBN number.

WP:SFN short citations link to the full references, which are listed in the Bibliography, and that is a form of "References" and is a subcategory of it. You ought not to mess with a machine that works – complies with WP:MOS and was put in by experienced editors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

End notes

Same info, and we don't need separate notes repeating the text multiple times. How do we fix it.

, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me like @Frietjes: has handled this. Let me know if I misunderstood. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed User:Sphilbrick It's all good. Thank you @Frietjes: 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Why the ALT DYK hook should be used

Concerning which DYK hook should be used, the original or the ALT, please note the original DYK hook is not entirely accurate and that is why an ALT was proposed. Please see in the Archived Discussion the paragraph about four bullets up from the bottom that explains the problem with the original hook (it has to do with confusing the terms sculpting and carving) and also describes the reasons for selecting the four buildings in the ALT DYK hook. I refer you to that paragraph rather than repeat it here. In a nutshell, Ardolino did not "sculpt and carve" those two buildings. Lee Lawrie is the acknowledged sculptor for both. But please read full explanation as above. Thank you! E54495a (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous DYK hook was published on main page despite discussions above

This comment memorializes the fact that an erroneous DYK hook for Edward Ardolino was published on April 20, 2020 on the main page, despite an April 11 discussion in the Nomination template that offered an ALT hook and the reasons why the originally proposed hook should not be used. The first major contributor and DYK nominator came to an agreement on that date to use the ALT hook. However, a third party slightly revised the original hook (still incorrect) and put that forth. On April 16 a New Section was posted on this page (since the nomination discussion was already archived) reiterating why that hook was incorrect and the ALT should be used. Even so, the erroneous DYK hook was published on April 20. To repeat, Ardolino did not "sculpt and carve" the two buildings cited. There is a difference between sculpting and carving. Lee Lawrie is the acknowledged sculptor of these two buildings, which is clearly stated in the article. The entire discussion may be read above. The purpose of this comment, made after the publication of the erroneous DYK hook on the main page, is to prevent this error from being repeated. Our common goal must be to ensure that WP is as accurate as possible. Thank you. E54495a (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sculptors (who deal with shape, with by addition or contraction) can also carve (remove material). The sources attribute some of the carvings to one of Ardolino's associates. But they do not rule him out as having done carving. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The error was that the DYK hook said Ardolino "sculpted and carved" these two projects. No, I can say with all confidence that Lee Lawrie was the sculptor on these two projects, and Edward Ardolino, Inc. was the carver. I repeat, there is a difference between carving and sculpting. The sculptor makes the models and the carver executes them. Sometimes sculpting and carving are done by the same individual, but not in this case. Just check out the authoritative book by Aumonier, which is referenced several times in the article. It clearly states that Lawrie was the sculptor for both buildings (widely acknowledged elsewhere, even on the Los Angeles Public Library website (Ref. 19), the Nebraska State Capitol website (Ref. 23), and in the contemporaneous Lincoln, NE, newspaper article (Ref. 22) ), and Edward Ardolino, Inc. was the carver in both cases. Remember, the Aumonier book was published in 1930, very close to the date of the projects, and Ardolino is thanked for his input in the Foreword, so you can be sure it is correct. I am not trying to detract from Ardolino. Far from it. Obviously I have great respect for him, as I wrote the article. But I am trying to keep WP accurate, and the DYK hook as published was not accurate. It's OK to admit a mistake (and the error was not likely yours as you agreed to the ALT hook), but this error should not be repeated. Thank you for your openness to these comments. E54495a (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)