Talk:Statue of Christopher Columbus (Johnston, Rhode Island)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) 12:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The work is stable, neutral and generally well written. The image appears to be appropriately licenced.
- What is the meaning of "swag" here? I could not even guess to what was being referred.
- "a curtain or piece of fabric fastened so as to hang in a drooping curve." Which is the most accurate and precise term, but it seems that a more unusual term (at least for me) is Festoon which doesn't really depict it in the same way. So I linked festoon which barely mentions swag. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- According to this, Williams wasn't the orator, Rugg was. Have a look and consider an appropriate revision.
- Thank you for the additional source! Though it lists Williams as "Presenter to the city" and oration as Reverand Rugg. I was particularly worried about the source so I presented in such a fashion as to highlight my personal uncertainty with it. Thanks for helping me clear that up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- As this is a sculpture and as such a work of art, i think its title should be italicised. See for example Venus de Milo or Cloud Gate.
- I believe there must be critical commentary on this work, given the fame of the artist who created it. It should be included in order to meet criterion 3, relating to main aspects of the topic. I found a contemporaneous reference to it here, there are the books on Bartholdi mentioned in the biblio of his WP article, and a few other leads i noted at Google Books looked promising when i searched on "Bartholdi columbus". I think it would be hard to get the article up at GA without at least some reference to its critical evaluation.
That's about it i think. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is a slight problem, academically speaking, with citing that in relation to this statue. The link provided is not so much a critical review, but a detail on the silver original. The silver original has much more note because of its showpiece status in a much more complicated and technically difficult to cast metal and the sheer cost of its production. Though I did find a reference which may be passable for this use in Inland Printer. My hesitation is the technical and unique properties associated with a completely different metal and finish than in the bronze copy which actually exists. This result is two fold, much of the details will remain, but the base way upon which the statue actually looks to the viewer is completely different. Also, a highly polished and specifically finished work in silver for maximum stunning effect is just going to render completely different in the eyes of the viewer than with bronze. Because the oxidized silver renders light and shadow in a much better form than bronze, much of the claims of this Columbus may be greatly reduced by the bronze. Also, the statue was very much cleaned up from its removal of the mold - as shown in the rare photo in the source. I just think we run the risk of comparing two similar things in an inappropriate synthesis. I'll debate this some with myself and probably give a call to Providence tomorrow and see if they can e-mail me additional details specific to the statue. I'd like this at FA if at all possible, but one step at a time! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, i see the issue. One thing you could do is write a sentence along the lines, "Reviewing the silver original of the statue at the Exposition, the X journal said 'quote'". See what else you come up with. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I added it. Thanks, its close enough in form and appearance that the sculpture would obviously be unaffected by the change of metal in a meaningful way - in lines and overall composition. Decided to leave out the lighting and shine and the more bombastic nature of the silver original, but I think its quite fair now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Great, thank you. I've converted your note into a footnote attached the relevant passage of text. I'd still like to see a review of books that cover this artist's work, to see if there is further contemporary critical commentary about the statue, but that is a long shot and not needed to meet GA. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I added it. Thanks, its close enough in form and appearance that the sculpture would obviously be unaffected by the change of metal in a meaningful way - in lines and overall composition. Decided to leave out the lighting and shine and the more bombastic nature of the silver original, but I think its quite fair now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, i see the issue. One thing you could do is write a sentence along the lines, "Reviewing the silver original of the statue at the Exposition, the X journal said 'quote'". See what else you come up with. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is a slight problem, academically speaking, with citing that in relation to this statue. The link provided is not so much a critical review, but a detail on the silver original. The silver original has much more note because of its showpiece status in a much more complicated and technically difficult to cast metal and the sheer cost of its production. Though I did find a reference which may be passable for this use in Inland Printer. My hesitation is the technical and unique properties associated with a completely different metal and finish than in the bronze copy which actually exists. This result is two fold, much of the details will remain, but the base way upon which the statue actually looks to the viewer is completely different. Also, a highly polished and specifically finished work in silver for maximum stunning effect is just going to render completely different in the eyes of the viewer than with bronze. Because the oxidized silver renders light and shadow in a much better form than bronze, much of the claims of this Columbus may be greatly reduced by the bronze. Also, the statue was very much cleaned up from its removal of the mold - as shown in the rare photo in the source. I just think we run the risk of comparing two similar things in an inappropriate synthesis. I'll debate this some with myself and probably give a call to Providence tomorrow and see if they can e-mail me additional details specific to the statue. I'd like this at FA if at all possible, but one step at a time! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
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.