Talk:Equestrian statue of George Henry Thomas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 02:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AgnosticPreachersKid, I will be completing a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! APK whisper in my ear 10:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

AgnosticPreachersKid, this article is well-written and meets the majority of criteria for Good Article status! I do have a few comments, questions, and suggestions that need to be addressed before re-review and passage to Good Article status. Thank you for all your hard work on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

The title of the article should be italicized in a similar fashion to that of General Philip Sheridan and Abraham Lincoln (Flannery).
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede in this article defines the topic, establishes context, and explains why the topic is notable. NRHP and NPS do not have to be abbreviated here, but only during their first respective mentions below within the article's prose. As they're only mentioned once in the prose below, you may not need them at all in the article.
The template's image was taken by the author, and is therefore free for use here.
The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Done APK whisper in my ear 14:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History
Background

Union Army should probably wiki-linked here.
Society of the Army of the Cumberland should be wiki-linked to Army of the Cumberland here.
Since "chose" was used for erection of the monument, perhaps use "selected" for John Quincy Adams Ward.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, New York probably doesn't need to be wiki-linked here.
When stating architects John L. Smithmeyer and Paul J. Pelz were charged with designing the monument, does this mean the base and pedestal component, or did they have a hand in the design of the statue as well? If the source is unclear, it can remain stated as it currently is, but if more specificity can be added, it should be.
This is a side-bar comment, but do we know why the traffic circle was referred to as Memorial Circle previously? Had another memorial been placed there? Again, this is just a question, and if it is unknown, this is not a deal breaker.
This subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Done I've looked at the sources, but can't find if Smithmeyer and Pelz only designed the base and pedestal (which I assume, but don't want to guess). I also can't find why it was named Memorial Circle before the statue was installed. APK whisper in my ear 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, think I found something for why it was named Memorial Circle. APK whisper in my ear 15:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the HABS source answered both of your questions. :-) APK whisper in my ear 15:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication

The drawing of the statue's dedication is fit for use as it is released into the public domain.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, Maryland and Pennsylvania probably doesn't need to be wiki-linked here.
This subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Done APK whisper in my ear 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Influence and historic designation

Is the monument considered one of the best equestrian statues in Washington, D.C. by historians? By urban planners? By architects? If the source doesn't stipulate, this statement is fine as is, but if more preciseness can be provided, that would be great! If more details are available, this should also be added to the content in the lede regarding its status as one of the best equestrian statues.
This subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Done I've added some details on who considers it one of the best statues. APK whisper in my ear 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Design and location

The image was taken by the author, and is therefore free for use here.
Within the Thomas Circle article, there is mention of the 2006 restoration of the circle which included new sidewalks and landscaping, allowing closer access to the statue. See if it's worth adding a mention of this within this section. There is a source from the D.C. Department of Transportation that could be used for this.
The mention of the bronze from Confederate weaponry captured by the Union Army should be added into the background since it compliments the statue's significance as a monument to the Union victory during the war and Thomas's role in achieving it.
Army of the Cumberland should be wiki-linked in the Background subsection and de-linked here.
This subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Done APK whisper in my ear 16:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AgnosticPreachersKid, I've re-reviewed the article and find that you've adequately addressed all my comments, concerns, and questions. The article is a wonderfully-crafted comprehensive narrative that illustrates the history and significance of this very notable D.C. landmark. Congratulations on a job well done! I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. -- Caponer (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! APK whisper in my ear 16:13, 30 January 2015 (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.