Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Statue of Liberty/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:54, 13 August 2010 [1].

---

Statue of Liberty

Statue of Liberty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Statue of Liberty/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Having rather randomly looked at this article, I discovered it to be a near-gallery with shoddy text, so set about fixing it up. There is no doubt that there deserves to be a high-class article here given the number of schoolkids and others who no doubt consult Wikipedia prior to a visit. I would like to thank User:Kaisershatner for thoroughly keeping the article copyedited as I worked, and also User:White Shadows for being willing to help, though other commitments and a medical episode prevented him from doing much (he'll have another shot!)Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.nr.nps.gov/ is timing out; probably a temporary issue. Ucucha 17:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an intense discussion regarding the nr.nps.gov over at WP:RSN, I am awaiting some resolution.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The link is still timing out; whether reliable or not, it's probably dead, and thus not of much use. Ucucha 08:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I've replaced it with a book. If you run a google books search for the NRHP number, you can get enough of a snippet view to verify if you desire.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ucucha 10:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Media File:StatueofLibertyBlickOst.png requires a better link to the source. File:Emma_Lazarus_plaque.jpg doesn't give the date the plaque was first erected Fasach Nua (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, nice catch. The tag on the first one was wrong, I have replaced it with a PD-USgov tag, if you look at the bottom of the .png, you'll see that it is a Federal Government document. Regarding the second, I have added the date of the plaque's erection (1903) together with a link to a reliable source on that to the image page. I believe the creative commons tag is correct given the fact that it takes at least minimal photographic skill to get a photo with as little glare as possible on that plaque, although the plaque itself is in the public domain. I'd be grateful for any advice you might have if your view differs.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 41 (Statue of Liberty) lacks a publisher?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note - 80% of the lead is on the construction of the statue; there is way to little information in the lead on what happened for more than 100 years with the statue. 18.74.5.1 (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added more detail on the 1986 renovation, surely the largest event to happen to the statue since it was dedicated, to the lede. I trust that answers your concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support' Concerns now met. Thanks for the quick responses. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Comment for an article on a statue, I can't see any coverage of an art-historical approach to the subject, which one would think necessary for "comprehensive" coverage. Don't ask me where to look, but it will be out there. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the discussion of representation of Liberty, including the Statue of Freedom, as well as the discussion of why the statue had to overcome resistance because of American art trends in the postwar era? I prefer to integrate such things into the article rather than have a separate section, so it is easy to miss. I think that is sufficient for summary style.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a little on the iconography, including one sentence on the "resistance"; it doesn't seem enough to me. Where are the articles that cover the topic in more detail, if you are going to invoke summary style? The pedestal is also neglected, with no proper description. "Tablets of the law" is dubious piping to a link to Tabula ansata, which covers the form, but not the content, of the tablet. In the lead sentence, "colossal" is a more precise and correct term for the statue than "massive" - it is after all hollow. To write 63 kbytes worth on the statue without using either of the terms "neo-classical" or "neoclassicism" is something of a feat, and the classical antecedents of the statue should get some mention. All in all, the article needs fuller coverage of the statue as a statue rather than as a piece of engineering or tourist attraction. A few highlights from Statue of Liberty in popular culture and other articles in the S of L category should probably be added too; the statue is said to be iconic, but this is not really fleshed out beyond a UNESCO quote. Johnbod (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well the changes today are an impressively rapid response that cover the iconography pretty well. detailed points:
• To me, Tablets of the Law means Moses (who is not supposed to have used the ansata shape), and a google search on the singular shows the same picture [2]. The shape of the tablet is certainly a Tabula ansata, but the inscription commemorates the Declaration of Independence, which is not a law, & I don't see any general use of "tablet of the law" as an English equivalent for tabula ansata outside Statue of Liberty literature, which frankly is probably all just copying itself. There is no need to follow; I'd drop "tablet of the law" completely, unless you can use it as a quote from an early source close to the statue, & I'd de-couple it from the tabula ansata link, unless you can source that they mean the same outside the pool of SofL literature; as far as I can see the Latin term only refers to the shape, not the function. The pedestal still needs describing in architectural terms. a link to the Colossus of Rhodes, which the staue inevitably recalls, should be worked in somewhere. There must be more on the severe but very successful style, rather than the iconography, of the statue, which is rather unusual - the Washington statue illustrated is much more what one might expect from the period. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well . . . I'll see what I can do. I do not think we can throw away the "tablet of the law entirely" because we have a lot of reliable, knowledgeable sources saying it. However, I would certainly be willing to say something like "tabula ansata (sometimes described as a 'tablet of the law'". I will look for more material on the style of the statue of liberty and see if any more information can be found regarding the pedestal. Keep in mind that the purpose of the design of the pedestal was to be high, but not to be noticed. No guarantees.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually "tablet of the law" Statue of Liberty as a gbooks search produces very slim pickings. It unquestionably is a "tabula ansata" (shape). Why it may also be called "a tablet of the law" needs referencing, but I think you will struggle to show that the two terms are translations of each other; they are saying different things I think. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport

Johnbod has a point; here are some specific things

• Why is the statue a woman rather than a man? A reader should get the answer to this question in the lead; its there in the text kind of obliquely.
• Neo-classical should be in the lead somewhere - I'm actually intrigued as to Johnbod's question regarding the use of the term in your sources; the second paragraph of the Fundraising section has the word classical...probably should be neo-classical to appease us.
• In one spot Liberty is personified, another the statue is the embodiment of Liberty - I was trying to figure out what the difference was.
• I think there should be a section on symbolism covering the torch, the points on the crown, the crown (technically a Diadem), the tablet, broken chain; I also wondered why a tablet instead of a shield, a torch instead of a spear or sword, a diadem instead of the liberty cap or helmet?
• I was surprised Liberty Leading the People wasn't mentioned, also Columbia. Marianne should be discussed in the text a little. Kirk (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, that was quick. I'm satisfied now, but here's some minor points:

Goddess answers my question, but would you mind working into the lead the phrase 'robed female figure' which you used later in the text?

In the text explain the robes are actually a roman garment (I think Stola), assuming that's what Bartholdi intended.

...a pacific appearance... answered my question about torch vs. spear, but I'm not certain pacific is in everyone's vocabulary. Kirk (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I try to work quickly if at all possible. I replaced "pacific" with "peaceful" but am uncertain that this is the best word. Ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm working on it. However, regarding the popular culture, I will have to give it some thought. We're not going for Planet of the Apes. I may write a paragraph discussing its use on stamps and coins and so forth, I am reluctant to write anything that will serve as an invitation for everyone to put in their favorite Liberty cameo, from Spaceballs to Bugs Bunny.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you expand on your concern, Johnbod, with tablets of the law? That is how tabula ansata is generally rendered in English, I am not clear why you are calling it a dubious pipe.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

See above. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've gone ahead and addressed the concerns of Johnbod (except for the above question) and Kirk. I have even gone to planet of the apes, since I can use it as a lead in to wrap up the article neatly. It will inevitably be peppered with the other googol movies in which the statue has appeared, but we do what we can. I kinda like the ending, actually. No, not the movie's ending! The article's!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod, I've expanded on the description of the pedestal, piped colossal to Colossus of Rhodes and played with the tabula ansata thingy. I've added some material on the simplicity of Bartholdi's design, with a blockquote from the horse's mouth. I think that is everything; any suggestions from you welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• For completeness, "Depictions of the statue" needs a para about replicas for completeness.
• Why is Colossus of Rhodes (colossal) linked in the lead sentence? Also, colossal may be treated as WP:PEACOCK term. Replace it with something like "a x ft tall sculpture" --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Kaisershatner is working on a paragraph on replicas. Colossal is piped to Colossus of Rhodes because there is no article, "colossal". The statue is referred to by Bartholdi, officially, as "colossal", see the part on "dedications", it is on the plaque placed by the artist stating what the statue is. I can't link to colossus because that is a disambig page, though it does mention that the original meaning of same was "exceptionally large statue".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

An artist calling his own art as colossal is a POV. Colossal is a relative adjective, meaning different things to different people. I would still recommend "a 46 m sculpture" in the lead sentence. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me see what the sources say about this. I do not think the lede sentence is the place to get into statistics, would you accept a change to "large"? It certainly is that ...--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Colossal is a technical term, though not one with a precise definition, as is often the case in the arts; it is not POV in the slightest in a work of this size; that is nonsense I'm afraid. It should link to Colossus, which is a disam page but one that gives an adequate definition of the term and several examples. Note that the article is in Category:Colossal statues which survived a lengthy Cfd debate on this issue a few years back. I asked above for a mention & link to Colossus of Rhodes but not in this way. The Rhodes colossus is the clear classical precedent for the SofL because of its size, early date and location at the entrance to a harbour, all of which should be said. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that tonight when I get home, though this article is starting to become colossal itself ... at almost 80K, I am hesitant to add too much more.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is ok so far. If it is felt to be too big, the section "Renovation to present (1982– )" might be hived off to its own article. This is what was done on Sistine Chapel ceiling with Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes, which is itself an FA. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the spirit of what you stated, Johnbod, and done an interwiki link to the Wiktionary definition of "colossus", which I think is much better than linking to a disambig page. Redtigerxyz, based on the fact that it is an artistic term of note, I hope you will accept this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I restored the paragraph on replicas in the last section and will continue to update it. Kaisershatner (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and several of my references discuss replicas. I will be home tonight and will supplement Kaisershatner's work and add refs as needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments, esp. on the art history matters discussed above. It may be useful to consult these sources:

• Peter Fusco and H. W. Janson (editors), The Romantics to Rodin: French Nineteenth-Century Sculpture from North American Collections, Los Angeles County Museum of Art (1980). ISBN 0875870910. Pp. 60–69; 121–23.
• Gschaedler, True Light on the Statue of Liberty and Its Creator, Narberth, Pennsylvania: Livingston Publishing (1966). Pp. 26-30
• Trachtenberg, Marvin, The Statue of Liberty, Harmondsworth and New York, (1977, 1986) ISBN 9780140084931.

The first book notes that "the monument's French origins are often overlooked" (which, in the context of the subject, means its artistic origins), and remedies that lacuna by placing it firmly in the traditions of nineteenth-century French sculpture. Relying on the other two sources, Dr. Marie Busco, the author of the specific entry on Bartholdi (pp. 121–23), discusses some of the history now in the FAC (with some variations, especially a statement that Laboulaye encouraged the sculptor to undertake the project when it was first mooted in 1865). The earlier entry in that book is more interesting. In it, Peter Fusco discusses a proposed sculpture to replace the cross on the top of the Panthéon, for which Jean-Pierre Cortot received the commission. Cortot's bronze model, c. 1835, bears a remarkable resemblance to Bartholdi's later statue, and the author states that Bartholdi's statute "probably owes some debt" to Cortot's earlier work. Cortot's statue was entitled "Immortality", and Fusco states that the statue of Liberty is an example of the "syncretistic process" by which allegorical representations of various concepts such as Faith, Truth, etc. are combined. I have the first of these books but not the others, but I see that Gschaedler is listed under "Further reading" in the Bartholdi article. Kablammo (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got Trachtenberg around someplace but it really wasn't terribly helpful, he didn't break new ground. I am not surprised their were variations, Bartholdi was a bit of a storyteller, and he seemed to have told different versions now and then. Fairly typical. I am hesitant to go much further into the art history of this work, though I find it fascinating, I have to consider that the average reader of this article will be someone interested in the statue because of an upcoming visit or a school project, It may well be worth doing an article on Art History of the Statue of Liberty down the line. If I include the word "syncretistic", they will throw things at me. There's always a balance in a FA. I may add those to the further reading though.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to squeeze a little more in on the French origins, but relate it closer to Bartholdi, for example, the Lion of Belfort and his penchant for monumental sculpture.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is an 1859 bronze of the Cortot model. Kablammo (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. However, "probably owes some debt" to Cortot means "I can't find anything to connect the two men". I just leafed through all my sources and they don't mention Cortot. I hesitate to include it based on physical similarities but am open to ideas. Did you look over the artistic matter I added to the article? Just do a diff for the last hour, you'll see it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying earlier. The sections relating to artistic history look good. I may add a couple of phrases with cites to the Fusco et al. book, but see no reason to delay this FAC in the meantime. Hence I support promotion.

As an aside, you may wish to take a look at this. Fluency in French is not required; the pictures tell the story. Kablammo (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Johnbod for his considered comments and support. I'm rather enjoying this FAC, I've learned quite a lot about art, not one of my better subjects, and the article has improved considerably. I might even go back to the Statue of Liberty, I have not been there since 1986.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaning to support: I have read down to the Dedication section, and most informative it has been. I have a few comments, mainly prose niggles. I hope to have time to finish reading the article soon.

• Design, style, and symbolism: the sentence beginning "When Crawford's statue was designed..." is long and convoluted, and should be split.
• Announcement and early work: Try as I will, I can't identify the "new cantata" composed by Gounod in any of the lists of his works. This looks comprehensive, and there's no trace of it. Are any other details given concerning this work?

  The sources you have given, below, is authoratitive, and I am inclined to think the "list of works" website is crap. It's also a complete nightmanre to navigate. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Construction in France
  • "In 1879, the architect fell ill and died..." To whom is ths referring?
• Fundraising, criticsm etc
  • "The statue was not the only major project having difficulty raising money..." Needs rewording; the statue itself wasn't trying to raise money.
  • "The foundation of the statue was to be laid inside Fort Wood, a disused army base which had fortifications shaped like an eleven-point star." I feel a little more could be made of this interesting fact, which is not clearly evidenced in any of the illustrations, though is very apparent here. I don't know if this image is properly licenced, but if it is, why not use it? In any event a little explanatory text would be helpful.

  I can understand your reluctance to use the image I suggested, if its licensing is questionable. Your additional words of explanation are helpful. It might help a liitle bit more if the caption to the 1927 photograph later in the article draws specific attention to the 11-point star, which is visible in that photograph. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • "...the New York committee, which took the greatest part..." Vague; the greatest part of/in what?
  • "Even with the success of the fund drive, the pedestal was completed until April 1886." Word missing, I think?
  • "Once that occurred, reassembly of the statue began at once". Sentence starts and finishes with "once". And the next-but-one sentence begins "Once..." as well.

One last point: this review page is a nightmare to navigate, with image comments in three separate lengthy chunks. Could these please be put together and, if the issues are resolved, maybe collapsed? I'm sure the delegates would appreciate some tidying up. Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Resolved image issues moved to talk page. [3] Эlcobbola _talk 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The small stuff is done. I looked at that image, I'm unhappy about the sourcing. It is certainly in a government publication but it nowhere says who took it. The government could have had a private contractor do it and then acquired the copyright, which it may do. Earlier today I added an image of the statue in 1927, and aerial view, which does show the star, though not as well as the one you proffered. Regarding Gounod: According to Moreno, Gounod tried to get Victor Hugo to write the poem for the cantata but Hugo wouldn't or couldn't do it. He got a guy named Emile Guiard. The program at the (then brand new) Paris Opera included a speach by Laboulaye, music by Auber, Rossini, an earlier piece by Gounod, and a musical poem by Paul Deroulede. Then came the cantata, conducted by Gounod himself. That's the fullest description I have for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you can access this, but it is mentioned in there, as La Liberté éclairant le monde (Hymne) avec Choeurs et Orchestre. That website on Gounod you referred me to has nothing for between 1873 and 1877.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This, though in French, should confirm that this is not a product of Moreno's fevered imagination, brought on by too many research climbs to the torch, where the air is thin.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above on the Gounod. I hope to complete the reading today or tomorrow and will leave further comments if necessary. Overall the article looks very healthy. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: All my concerns noted above have been dealt with, as have a number of others which were settled in sandbox discussions. The article looks first class, a real, solid piece of history and most enlightening for us over here, who are never otherwise told these things. Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a point of including a few things that kids are not taught about the Statue, for example, the bitterness of the black newspaper which thought the statue hypocritical in an era of lynchings. But I think it will be real useful for the many kids and adults who study the statue in preparation for a visit each year. Well, three supports, no opposes, all checks done I think. If anyone sees anything that must be done for promotion, I'd be grateful for a heads-up.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm unlikely to visit it myself, unless I come to power here and Obama invites me for a State visit, but it is equally interesting to have so many gaps in one's superficial knowledge filled. Brianboulton (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As a New Yorker by birthright (though I have never lived there), I have followed the tradition of New Yorkers and rarely visited myself, just once as a child and once when I was 23. I am thinking of going again, though, perhaps this fall. Thanks for the praise. This has turned out to be a much more massive project than I anticipated, but I think it is useful to the reader, which is the point of the exercise.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Looks in good shape, but it does need one more copyediting pass, which I've begun. I can complete it in a couple of days.—DCGeist (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Would someone pls ping me when you're done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Almost done. One sourcing problem I found: Current note 16, referenced several times, is incorrect: Warren, Donald R.; Patrick, John J. (2006). Civic and Moral Learning in America. New York: Macmillan. pp. 212–214. ISBN 1403973962. This is an edited work, and the cited source is an essay within it that is not by Warren and Patrick. Please provide the correct citation, and while you're doing so, check again that the essay actually supports all the material that is cited to it. I had to cut a passage that attributed an opinion to Bartholdi that examination of the source showed was actually Laboulaye's.—DCGeist (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: A slightly mystifying line in the discussion of the mid-1980s restoration: "The replacement skin was taken from a copper rooftop at Bell Labs, which had a patina that closely resembled the statue's, in exchange for the laboratory being able to test the old copper skin." Test it for what? The implication ("in exchange") is that this testing was of some benefit to Bell Labs—do we know what sort of benefit?—DCGeist (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The source simply mentions that they wanted it for testing, and that was part of the deal. It does not enlighten further.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: A more serious problem: The Fundraising, criticism, and construction in the United States subsection refers to the "concrete pedestal". The "Physical characteristics" subsection refers to the "granite pedestal". It may be that one section is concrete and another granite; it may be that the entire pedestal combines both materials. In any case, this needs to be re-researched and clarified. My copyedit will be complete once the issues in these comments have been addressed. Good work.—DCGeist (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a granite facing; the body of the pedestal is made of concrete. I did not put the word granite in there, and will change it. The committee could not afford such a large mass of granite, though it was considered. See, for example, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am hijacking internet from a hotel to write this but must leave now; I will not be able to answer further questions, should you have any, until the morning. Thank you for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In Physical characteristics, the language taken directly from the source to refer to the height of the statue itself—"Height from base to torch"—is very problematic. Throughout the article, the word "base" is used to refer to Fort Wood, where the Statue of Liberty Museum is located, where the immigration museum used to be located, where an elevator takes visitors to the top of the pedestal, etc. We do not use "base" to mean the pedestal—indeed, twice in The statue today we clearly distinguish between the two. There is one proper reference, in Inscriptions, plaques, and dedications, to the "copper base" at the feet of the figure, which constitutes part of Bartholdi's statue. My proposed correction for the Physical characteristics table—"Height from copper base to torch"—was rather loudly rejected. Still, we must do something (including making clear that the figure applies to the tip of the torch). Possibilities:

• "Height from bottom of copper base to tip of torch"
• "Height from top of pedestal to tip of torch"

The second option reads smoother, while the first underscores for the reader that while the statue as a whole is 151'1" tall, the actual female figure is somewhat shorter than that.—DCGeist (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was loud, your edit confused me and that probably shows that it would be the same for the reader. I guess the root of my problem is that I am uncertain that the top of the pedestal = the bottom of the statue, since they added the copper sheathing in 1938. I wish I understood better where the NPS is measuring from, especially since they remeasured in 1986 ... they found out some of the old measurements of the statue were wrong. Moreno's direct quote on the artist's plaque is that it "is on the copper base, beneath the statue's feet". I am anxious to adhere as closely to the language in the sources on this point as possible. Regarding the torch matter, I think people understand that saying to the torch would mean including the height of the torch. If we say "from head to toe", we do not actually mean "from neck to ankle", I suppose! I think there is a point at which we have to trust to human understanding ... by the way, when you added the granite facing to the article, did you check to ensure that it is included in the reference which next follows the insertion? Copyeditors have to be careful about verifiability just like the rest of us! I will certainly add a source if you did not, as well as the other substantive changes you made, though I may have to go through them in some detail to ensure that I can assure the delegate that WP:V is met throughout the article. Oh well, eyes were made for eyestrain! I gather this was your last remaining point? And when we resolve this, you see no impediment to promotion?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when I added the description of the granite facing, I eyeballed the sources I cited. Of course. Same with the "largest concrete mass ever poured" I added a few paragraphs down. Thanks for noting that copyeditors have to be careful about verifiability—you should know that you can rest easy about my devotion to that point.

On the first line of the Physical characteristics table:

• To have "the torch" in line 1 but "tip of torch" in line 2 in fact logically suggests that the first reference is not to the "tip". Adding "tip" removes any basis for confusion. (Yes, the NPS should splurge on a decent copyeditor.)
• Your observation about the 1938 work indicates that, indeed, not only can we not use "copper base" for the measurement, but that phrase in Inscriptions should be changed. I've just done that. It appears that what Moreno refers to as a "copper base" is actually copper sheathing around the uppermost part of the pedestal. At any rate, we know that's not a solid block of copper there, so "copper sheet" appears to be the safest solution here.
• Simple arithmetic indicates that the 151' 1" measurement must be from the top of the pedestal (Ground to tip of torch: 305' 1". Height of foundation: 65'. Height of pedestal: 89'. Remainder: 151' 1"). However, I do understand that we want our language here to be well sourced...just as I hope you understand that, whatever the NPS says (and how about that ugly rag on their measurements?), we can't simply have "base" here, given the terminology we've established in the article. (Again, if we didn't clearly distinguish between base and pedestal, it might be possible. But we do, so it isn't.) So, here's clearer language that we can source for the 151' 1" height:

• Height from feet to top of torch [4] [5].—DCGeist (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think they actually moved Bartholdi's plaque, I imagine that is where he put it, though it is not exactly accessible to the public! To be honest, the table is from before I started work on the article, though I added the image. I checked it against the source, saw the source was reliable (NPS), and spent my time worrying about prose. Your proposed language will do. Do you see anything else that needs to be done? I did not know you had copies of the sources available, btw, and was a bit concerned. Sorry about any misunderstanding. If you do not, are we good to go?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, I have struck the word "sheet" and so it reads "on the copper beneath the statue's feet". That way we avoid the whole question of the base.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have tweaked the language in the table to eliminate the word "base" in the first entry, so it now reads "height of copper statue". Surely the sheathing is not part of the copper statue. I also added the word "level" to your parenthetical "(ground)".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised you added the Hempstead book as a reference and used it as such. It is a 32 page juvenile book and does not meet my standards of being a high-quality source as you would expect for a featured article. I have deleted it and sourced instead to the authoritative text by Mr. Moreno, who is the statue's historian and possibly its greatest living authority. Judging by the phrasing used, that's where Hempstead got it. No offense intended, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There are kiddie books, and then there are kiddie books. Heinemann-Raintree is a well-respected educational publisher, and their classroom textbooks meet our WP:V standards. Of course, a higher-quality source is always preferable; unfortunately, I do not own Moreno's Statue of Liberty Encyclopedia and, as I'm sure you are aware, neither Google Book Search nor Amazon Read Inside gives ready access to it. On that point, does Moreno actually confirm the thickness of the concrete walls (20 feet), for which Hempstead was the source? If not, I have located another (adult) source.—DCGeist (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally, textbooks below college level are not of sufficient high quality for FAC ... there was a discussion of this at WT:FAC last year. Yes, Moreno does so state, and so you are reassured that I am appropriately citing, the actual quotation is "It has 20-foot-thick (6-meter-thick) concrete walls and contains the Statue of Liberty's massive anchorage." I am always happy to see other sources, why not mention it on the article talk page?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, generally. But when an article such as this is missing an essential fact—"At the time, it was the largest concrete mass ever poured"—we take what we can access that meets our broader policy.—DCGeist (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps (assuming you recognized it was a children's book) it might have been a better course of action, since you deemed inclusion essential to ask me, with my greater access to references, to seek a high-quality reference to include it?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned by DCGeist's edit here, with edit summary "more precise". It implies that the walls are less than 20 feet thick in some areas, and I find nothing to support that on the cited pages of the two references DCGeist has left unchanged in support. Doesn't that create a WP:V problem?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Will logic reassure you? We know that the pedestal is a "truncated pyramid...39.4 feet (12.0 m) at the top." If you feel the need for a source that makes clear that not every wall in the pedestal is 20 feet thick, there is this [6]. Note that if you do choose to cite it, Cornish is not an author, despite what the Google Books generic credit might suggest.—DCGeist (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The walls do merge, necessarily, to support the statue, since the center of gravity of the statue is within the pylon and it would be poor technique to have an unsupported space under that. However, I will leave it as you have it pending additional research on the space within the pedestal.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Didn't David Copperfield make the statue disappear in a famous magic act? That might merit a few words in the section that talks about movies that the statue has been featured in. Please don't hold up the nomination for this though. Just a thought. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me look at that after the nom closes, I continue to maintain articles that I worked on. My initial thought is against it, but I want to look at it more closely.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I actually visited the article for two reasons. To get more information about the "difficulty in moving the Statue" and to look at when David Copperfield made it "disappear". Neither seemed present. I wouldn't say that these impair the "comprehensiveness" of the article for FA status, but thought I'd mention it anyway. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In response to this edit summary query: Because the language is a bit muddy—it's not the "labor-intensive method" of crafting the saddle that gives "strong support to the skin", as it reads now, but the design of the saddle (whose crafting happens to require a labor-intensive method) that provides "strong support". Just needs a little tweak.—DCGeist (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have changed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there are no issues remaining to be resolved. We have three supports and no opposes. The article has received repeated copyediting, and I've just gone through the article in detail to ensure that there were no inadvertent changes of meanings. All checks have been done. I am unaware of any barriers to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, User:Kaisershatner has also given it a final copyedit, I see.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We now have four supports, thanks to Kablammo (I am noting that because Kablammo did not put his support on the left margin, and it may be difficult for the delegate to see in such a long FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: You really need to be more thoughtful with your edit summaries, Wehwalt. If a myth was being perpetuated about the rays, it was being perpetuated by the one proper source you provided for the line, the U.S. Mint: "There are 25 windows running the length of Lady Liberty’s crown, which is topped by seven rays, meant to convey both the light of the sun and the seven seas and continents of the world." It was also being perpetuated by the source on the line that once preceded it (the NPS Historical Handbook), which refers to the "7 rays of the diadem"—which, as our article tells us, is the crown. Are we very clear now on who was perpetuating what?

Furthermore, the remaining source—the U.S. Mint—does not confirm the description of the rays as a "halo" or "aureole". The source I eliminated—the NPS Handbook—falsely appeared to, but in no way does (in fact, the cited link confusingly led to a page on the "Early History of Bedloe's Island"). So...you need to provide a source for this description. Is there a higher-quality one available than the brief Moreno Q&A on the topic, part of ref 33, to which his only contribution is "Yes!"? In his encyclopedia, perhaps? You can thank me for my vigilance about verifiability later.—DCGeist (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

How is that? There was a reference omitted, and now that I look more closely, there are two difference FAQs that the NPS has for the Statue, and they, god help us all, give two different answers (not inconsistent with each other) on this point, one saying halo or aureole, the other the stuff you'll find on the Mint website and which I won't repeat. It should be straightened out now. And no, I do thank you for your edits which improve the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. One would have hated to lose "aureole." Lovely word.—DCGeist (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Very well. If you see any other goofs, please let me know. I agree on "aureole". It may be faster if you just blip me on my talk page, since I am working on another article and only checking here every now and then. I am confident I can take care of any problems you may find.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

After a search (since there is no separate entry for "rays" or "spikes", I find that on page 69, Moreno does say that the rays emanate from the statue's head and form a nimbus, which is a synonym for aureole or halo. I can add the synonym if you like, but it is just a synonym.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, what we have there is just fine now. Moreno declares the rays come from the head; other quality sources refer to them as the rays of the crown, and as a structural matter, they are clearly attached to the crown. I'm not sure that's a difference of opinion that we can choose to resolve. I gather that you believe Moreno is right, or probably right, and I concur. The clearest photo of this design element I've been able to locate is here: [7]. I read that as a halo above the crown—a halo whose rays rest on the crown. But it is certainly reasonable to interpret it in a different way. In the absence of a definitive declaration from Bartholdi, I think the simple statement we've arrived at—"The seven rays form a halo or aureole"—which elides the crown vs. head question, is the best way to handle it.—DCGeist (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: Meets all the criteria. There's a strong sense of storytelling here, exemplified by the engrossing selection of quotations.—DCGeist (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Five-nil to the statue, I think, and all checks done. Whew.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Additionally, User:Kaisershatner has also given it a final copyedit, I see." Wikipedia! Where there is no such thing as a final copyedit... :) Kaisershatner (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• There must be a way to improve on the section heading "The statue today", but nothing occurs to me ... we should avoid "the" and I'm not crazy about "today" either. Don't know how to fix it, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed it to "In modern times", but I'm sure there's a better title. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Don't look now, but I believe TonyTheTiger would have us italicize the name as a work of art, based on some of his FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've never seen the "Statue of Liberty" italicized in contemporary usage, but of course some of Wehwalt's sources may disagree. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Me neither, but TTT wanted his fountains italicized as works of art. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.