Talk:Statue of Queen Victoria, Auckland/GA1

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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.