Talk:Statue of Israel Putnam

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Statue of Israel Putnam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 17:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this. Grabbing it up right away as I'm always happy to see GANs related to my home state. I'm working on a few other GANs right now, but comments to come soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Starting the review now. Pretty short so I've done this all at once.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   A couple minor issues identified in my comments.

   Good to go now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead is rather short, and could use a bit of expansion. I see no mention of the statue's reception, which is talked about in the body.

   Issues rectified. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References look fine to me.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   References are from magazines and museums, no unreliable sources for the topic.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Everything is cited that needs to be.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig picks up a quote, which is properly attributed. No issues.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Covers design, construction, reception, and the statue's namesake. Mostly good, but I'd like to see more from 1900 to present if available. If not, that's not a huge issue.

   Seems there isn't really any information available here. That's not enough to prevent GA in my opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Appropriate level of detail for an article on one specific statue.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Maintains a neutral encyclopedic tone throughout.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Only 7 revisions in history, all are minor tweaks. No issues with stability.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Both images are public domain as the statue is from the 1800s.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Captions make sense, no issues.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Mostly ready for GA, a few issues noted below. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

   I have no further concerns, promoting to GA. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Specific comments

• As I mentioned above, the lead is rather short and should be expanded.
  • Expanded and rephrased lead to incorporate more information from the article.
• "The statue would be the first of six Revolutionary War sculptures Ward would create during his lifetime, and it was also the first sculpture he would work on following a trip to Europe." I don't see the relevance of the second part of this sentence to the article. I would remove it.
  • Done.
• "The monument was dedicated on June 17, 1874 in a large ceremony in the park." Suggest changing one of the two uses of "in" to "at".
  • Done.
• The one sentence from 1993 feels out of place, is there any other information about the statue dating to 1900 or later that could be included here to make the paragraph longer than just one sentence?
  • Unfortunately, I could not find much recent information on the statue aside from the survey in 1993.
• "He is holding a sword by his side with his left hand while his relaxed right hand holds onto a tricorne." Suggest a comma after "his left hand".
  • Done.
• "The Bushnell Park Foundation, which oversees the park and administers the statue, observed that" "They proceed to note" These two sentences should be in the same tense, so "proceed" should be "proceeded", or "observed" should be "observe".
  • Done,
• Consider rearranging this section to put contemporary analysis ahead of modern analysis, to follow chronological order.
  • Rearranged section and slight rephrasing to follow chronological order.

  That's all my comments, placing this on hold pending responses. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  @JJonahJackalope: Want to make sure you see this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Just now seeing this, will make some edits shortly! -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  {{u|Trainsandotherthings]], just wanted to reach out and say that I have made some edits to the article to address your comments above. Thank you for starting this review, and if there are any further questions, comments, or concerns, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  That ping didn't go through, but don't worry I still saw your edits. Everything looks good now and I will promote the article to GA. Congratulations! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)