Talk:Queen Victoria Monument, Wellington

Queen Victoria Monument, Wellington has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 2, 2024. (Reviewed version).

British Royalty Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

A fact from Queen Victoria Monument, Wellington appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 January 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that British intervention reversed the lacquering of a statue in New Zealand?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Queen Victoria Monument, Wellington.

Wikipedia

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Oceania's "10,000 Challenge", which started in November 2016 and is still continuing. You can help!

Did you know nomination

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 Bruxton talk 05:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Queen Victoria Monument, Wellington

... that international outcry reversed the lacquering of a New Zealand statue? Source: ‘A token of their love’: Queen Victoria Memorials in New Zealand. https://19.bbk.ac.uk/article/id/1698/ Page 22 of the PDF version.
- Reviewed: Femboy

Created by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 09:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Queen Victoria Monument, Wellington; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

I shall review this one. Schwede 66 00:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article was moved to mainspace yesterday. Plenty long enough, neutrally written, and well referenced. The one source that shows up with a high percentage on Earwig is fine; what's caused that are titles, quotes, and other unavoidable things. With regards to the hook, "international outcry" is going a bit far. It was the Royal Society of Sculptors in Britain that complained about happenings half a world away; maybe be a bit more specific about who complained and where from, or something along those lines. The image is freely licensed but I suppose I would say that; I see that I uploaded it from Flickr back in 2014 :-) (the photographer is an established Flickr user who's taken heaps of photos of monuments and historic buildings). QPQ has been done. Hence, once we've got an improved hook sorted, this can progress. Schwede 66 00:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How about ALT1: ... that British intervention reversed the lacquering of a New Zealand statue? Source: ‘A token of their love’: Queen Victoria Memorials in New Zealand. https://19.bbk.ac.uk/article/id/1698/ Page 22 of the PDF version. Generalissima (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 is good to go. Schwede 66 10:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Queen Victoria Monument, Wellington/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 11:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll be reviewing this one using the table below, comments to follow soon! Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 11:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Generalissima, my initial review is complete. I've left some comments below to address, but overall a really good article which won't take much tweaking to get to GA. Do let me know if you'd like any clarification on anything :) Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 13:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Unexpectedlydian: I made some changes to the article based off your feedback. :3 Generalissima (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Generalissima, thanks for the quick response! Looks really good now, happy to promote to GA :) Well done! Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 10:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	General comments ~~Just an opinion, but the Composition section might be better placed after Background and creation, and before History.~~ Lead Copied after Drury's earlier 1903 Portsmouth statue, the monument's plinth additionally features a plaque and three bronze reliefs, designed in the New Sculpture style. Does the word "additionally" here mean "in contrast to Drury's earlier statue"? If so, might be worth specifying. If not, you can probably just get rid of the word "additionally". Initially located at Post Office Square, the statue was relocated in 1911 to between Kent Terrace and Cambridge Terrace within the Mount Victoria neighbourhood of Wellington, New Zealand. This sentence could be clearer by making the location more precise, i.e. "the statue was relocated in 1911 to an area between Kent Terrace..." Background and creation ~~Maybe wikilink Māori?~~ ~~equivalent to £346,496 in 2021 Is this the most up-to-date figure?~~ History ~~Wikilink the first instance of lacquering (currently the second instance is linked).~~ The statue was the site of a lesbian visibility protest on International Women's Day in 1977, due to associations drawn by feminist activists between the statue and remnant Victorian morality and colonisation in New Zealand. This sentence sort of comes out of nowhere as it concludes a paragraph about the upkeep of the statue. It would be better suited in the next paragraph about how public opinion declined over time.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section The lead could contain a bit of info about Queen Victoria's pose (i.e. standing) and what she is holding, but only if info is available and cited elsewhere in the article as well (see section 3a below). Layout Y Words to watch None identified. Fiction N/A List incorporation N/A
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources cited correctly and in an appropriate layout.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Source check I have checked the most-cited sources and a selection of others. Stocker 2016a (1) Y (3) Y (4) Y (5) Y (9) Y (10) Y (21) ~~Can't find any reference to "Aberdeen granite" in this source.~~ Y The Wellington Statue, 7 February 1901 ...but noted that a statue that would "do credit to the capital city of the colony" was most important. These quotation marks imply that it was Knox who said this verbatim, but it is a newspaper quote. Perhaps remove the quotation marks, or state that this was reported by the newspaper in order to avoid confusion? Leader, 8 February 1901 Y Queen Victoria Monument, 2023 Y Wellington's Welcome, 8 June 1910 Y The Varnished Statue: Engineer's Explanation, 5 August 1925 Y Council and Heritage building rainbows, 14 July 2022 Y
	2c. it contains no original research.	Key information is all cited. No evidence of original research detected when conducting source spot checks.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio detector brings up nothing of concern (35.5% similarly to Stocker article mainly highlights simple phrasing and quotes). Source spot-checks did not bring up anything of concern.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	~~Is there any information anywhere about the objects Queen Victoria is holding? If so, include this in both the lead and Composition.~~ Local dignitaries gave speeches for the arrival of Governor Lord Islington at a temporary dais erected near the statue. Is there any more info available regarding what this event was for, and if there was any particular significance to the statue?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Main aspects of the topic are addressed, no unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The information in the article is presented neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No evidence of edit wars or disruptive editing.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images all tagged with copyright status, no non-free images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images have suitable captions. Add alt text to all images (this is for accessibility purposes).
	7. Overall assessment.