Talk:Statue of Queen Victoria, Auckland

Statue of Queen Victoria, Auckland 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 9, 2024. (Reviewed version).

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Auckland Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Auckland, which aims to improve the coverage of Auckland, New Zealand, on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.AucklandWikipedia:WikiProject AucklandTemplate:WikiProject AucklandWikiProject Auckland articles
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 articles

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Statue of Queen Victoria, Auckland appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 January 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that The New Zealand Herald opposed a children's hospital in favour of a statue of Queen Victoria?

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 Statue, Auckland.

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 15:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Auckland press rallied against a proposed children's hospital in favor of a statue of Queen Victoria? Source: https://19.bbk.ac.uk/article/id/1698/, pg. 4 of the PDF version. "Initially, the hospital won favour, but this was opposed by the New Zealand Herald which demanded ‘a statue on the site of the flagstaff in the Albert Park."
- Reviewed: Cold Cathode Gauge Experiment

Created by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 03:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Queen Victoria Statue, Auckland; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good to me, Generalissima. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 05:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen of Hearts and Generalissima: I cannot find Auckland press/news in the article. I do see that the New Zealand Herald favored the statue. Is the New Zealand Herald the same as the Auckland Press? Bruxton (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: Small-p press, newspapers located in Auckland. The New Zealand Herald is an Auckland-based press publication. Generalissima (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For accuracy can't we say the New Zealand Herald? I also think "opposed" may be better than "railed" because railed suggests a persistent campaign of protesting. It may also be considered a campaign since they conducted a reader poll - (albeit with a small sample of 2000 readers). The source is ...but this was opposed by the New Zealand Herald which demanded ‘a statue on the site of the flagstaff in the Albert Park... the response (slightly under 2000 replies) was considered disappointing, the statue won handsomely and a further public meeting endorsed the poll.. I propose

ALT1: ... that the New Zealand Herald opposed a children's hospital in favor of a statue of Queen Victoria?

@Queen of Hearts and Generalissima: What do you think? Bruxton (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with this. Generalissima (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 23:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. ^Queen of _Hearts 03:58, 9 January 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.

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

Reviewer: Queen of Hearts (talk · contribs) 21:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

First GAN review. Best of luck to both of us. ^Queen of _Hearts 21:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Placing on hold for some minor quips. ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1a. prose

LGTM. ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1b. MoS

LGTM. ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2a. ref layout

Not sure where to shove this, but is there any pertinent reason ref 6 is invoked thrice in one paragraph with no citations between? Shouldn't it just be invoked once after ...following a copy at Derry completed in 1898? ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to put a citation after a direct quote, and a sentence was used for a DYK hook (which requires the sentence to be cited.) Have resolved this Generalissima (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 8 is pp. 6-8, not 7-8. Page 7 is a picture. ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2b. cites RS

Spotchecking Stocker 2016b (refs 2, 4-6c, 8, 14 & 15), Kerryn et al. 2022 (ref 9), and McLean 2013 (ref 11).

Stocker 2016b

Ref 2 is good, as is 4, 5, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 8. ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the 270 cm (110 in) granite pedestal claim in ref 14, unless I'm blind (which is very possible). ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its at the bottom of page 8. (450 - 180 = 270) Generalissima (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self-trout ^Queen of _Hearts 03:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 15 is good. ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerryn et al. 2022

9a, 9b, and 9c are fine. ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McLean 2013

This is fine. ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2c. no OR

This is fine. ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2d. no CV

Earwig returns 22%, most of which is unchangeable or a quote. However, I see a few little spots of CLOP,
- Officially commissioned in February 1898, the statue reached Auckland in January 1899. Is there any way to reword "the statue reached Auckland in January 1899"? ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A wrought-iron fence, originally surrounding the statue, was removed at an unknown date. Any way to reword "was removed at an unknown date"? ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In 1971, a University of Auckland feminist student group held a mock funeral at the statue to commemorate the 78th anniversary of women's suffrage, choosing the location due to Victoria's staunch opposition to female voting rights. Any way to reword "group held a mock funeral"? Maybe "a mock funeral was held by a University of Auckland feminist student group"? ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ngāhuia Te Awekotuku and members of the Gay Liberation Front held pride events at the statue in 1972 in the first public act of the New Zealand gay rights movement. Change "in 1972 in the first public act of the New Zealand gay rights movement" to "in 1972. This was the first public act of the New Zealand gay rights movement"? ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3a. broadness

Although Thornycroft was considered to have greater artistic prestige, photographs of Williamson's 1887 Victoria statue built for the Royal College of Surgeons impressed the memorial committee, especially due to Edward, Prince of Wales' alleged praise for the sculpture as the "best portrait ever executed of his mother." The source for this (6b) also claims that [Thornycroft]’s design was regretfully rejected by the memorial committee which recognized its ‘great intrinsic merits’ but could not afford it. I don't see anything about not being able to afford it in the article. ^Queen of _Hearts 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6a. free or tagged images

All images are either CC or PD, so this is fine. ^Queen of _Hearts 21:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6b. pics relevant

1st image is of the statue, 2nd is of it after its subject's death, and the 3rd is the portrait it was based on, so this is fine. ^Queenof_Hearts 21:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Queen of Hearts: Made changes per review. :3 Generalissima (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grand. ^Queen of _Hearts 03:57, 9 January 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.