Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sculptures of the National Statuary Hall Collection/archive1

Sculptures of the National Statuary Hall Collection

Sculptures of the National Statuary Hall Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Sculptures of the National Statuary Hall Collection/archive1

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I had been working on this list for several months before the events of January 6. Fortunately none of the statues were seriously damaged. I hope this serves as an effective catalogue of the National Statuary Hall Collection. ~ HAL333 16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

;Comment Is there a way to add a note pointing out that the word "statue" links to the article on the statue whereas the person's name links to the article on the person (or in some other way separating the links)? It would be easy to miss this distinction as it stands, given that they are only separated by the word "of" and could easily be taken for a single bluelink at a quick glance with ageing eyes like mine......... @ChrisTheDude: I'm going to post my own set of comments, but I'd like to address this point. The "Statue of Helen Keller" style is my doing. I've been using that style in lists of artworks (usually public artworks) since someone requested it in this FLC review. On the list reviewed there the text identifying the works was in bold, so would "Statue of Helen Keller" make the distinction clearer? Or would something like "Statue of Helen Keller" be better? Ham II (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC) I wouldn't bold the whole thing, because that just retains the same issue but with thicker letters. Bolding everything except the word "of" is better, but I think it might simply be easier to add a note at the to saying something like "For each entry, the word "statue" links to the article on the statue itself and the person's name links to the article on the person" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: An explanatory note at the top of the table sounds good to me, but of course this is HAL333's call to make. I still want to post a full set of comments here – fingers crossed I can get to it on the weekend. Ham II (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)  Done ~ HAL333 15:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC) The description "Po'pay (Fragua) of Po'pay" looks a bit odd. Have you got the piping the wrong way round on the bit before the word "of"? @ChrisTheDude: That was also me; now changed to "Statue of Po'pay". Ham II (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC) "Architect of the Capitol" is in italics in some refs but not others Ref 112 seems to have been written by someone called William Petroski rather than the mysterious "DES"....... I think that's all I have other than a feeble quip that the statue of George Clinton doesn't look much like him :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Appreciate the comments, and the humor. ;) ~ HAL333 19:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Since the table is sortable, duplicate wikilinks should probably be used in the Medium and Location columns.

Fixed. ~ HAL333 23:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• While the statues of Douglass and Parks are both significant, their relevant sources (here and here) both clearly state that they are not part of the National Statuary Hall Collection.

Removed. ~ HAL333 23:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Should the sculptor Felix de Weldon sort by "Weldon" or "de Weldon"? I'm genuinely asking; I'm not sure how last names like this work.

I had to look it up myself. Apparently, a name like that sorts with "de" only if what follows is a single syllable. How specific. ~ HAL333 23:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Other than that, it looks really good; I found the statues fascinating when I visited the Capitol and am happy to see this as an FLC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – I removed the key (no need for it anymore if every statue is from a state), but everything else looks good to go. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I can think of a couple minor improvements, but I think this list serves Wikipedia's readers well and should be promoted to FL status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Ham II

Resolved comments from Ham II (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

* Would readers expect to find this information at National Statuary Hall Collection? It seems a shame for the "Demographics" section of that article, in particular, to be separate from this list. I don't really know how to address this. Do you feel strongly about this? If really necessary, I guess I could merge them, but it would require a bit of work. I'll think more about this. ~ HAL333 19:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC) @HAL333: Sorry for my extreme delay in replying. I've tried pasting the list of statues into National Statuary Hall Collection (without saving) to see how it would look. I've come to the conclusion that the list would seem buried in the parent article, and the sorting functionality would be both less obvious and harder to use (because the headers to click for sorting wouldn't be near the top of the page). I think the parent article should have some kind of list for anyone expecting to find one there (I'd like to experiment with a fairly basic image gallery) but I now think that this sortable list should remain on a separate page. Ham II (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC) No worries. :) ~ HAL333 20:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC) The lede picture's caption should mention that the room depicted is the National Statuary Hall. Done. Is "labelled" American English? Nope. Nice catch. ~ HAL333 15:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) There are two successive sentences starting with the word "only" in the lede. Done. The flags of Illinois, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are mostly white. They'd stand out more from their backgrounds if the "Commissioned by" column had the same dark background as the "Statue" column. Then the "Statue" column text might have to be bold, to stand out further. I changed the column to a light yellow color. Hopefully that works. I was hesitant to bold due to the issues Chris touched on above. ~ HAL333 22:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC) I still think #EAECF0, the same grey colour as for the "Statue" column would be better – white stands out better against it than it does from yellow. I've changed my mind about using bold for the cells in the "Statue" column. Ham II (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Is there any other viable color? I really don't like th look of the two grey columns next to one another... ~ HAL333 20:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC) @HAL333: Would a darker grey than the one for the "Statue" column, and white text for the states' names, work? It's a shame that {{flag}} doesn't have a parameter for a thicker border, or a black one... Otherwise, I'd be back to preferring bold text for the "Statue" column. Lists using {{Public art row}} do have bold text here – see, e.g., List of public art in Westminster. Ham II (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Just tried to see what it would look like - not a huge fan. I have no idea how to properly address this. I'll ask for input on this on the FL talk page. ~ HAL333 13:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC) I see that you've removed the flags now and changed those fields back to the paler shade of grey; that seems like an acceptable compromise to me. I've got one final question before I support: given my first point about the demographics being discussed at a different article, would you consider a hatnote along the lines of {{for|a discussion of the demographics represented by the statues|National Statuary Hall Collection#Demographics}} at the top of the Statues section? Ham II (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC) I think I'll integrate some of that content into an expanded lede, as a later reviewer recommended. ~ HAL333 17:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)  Done ~ HAL333 16:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Thanks for those additions; I've made some stylistic changes but I'm otherwise satisfied with them. I've afraid I've spotted one more thing, though: what's the rationale for the sorting, other than alphabetically by state? Is it alphabetically by the subject's name? If so, why is Uriah M. Rose above James Paul Clarke (Arkansas), George L. Shoup above William Borah (Idaho), Samuel J. Kirkwood above Norman Borlaug (Iowa), Ingalls above Eisenhower (Kansas), King above Hamlin (Maine), Russell above Rankin (Montana), Vance above Aycock (North Carolina), Garfield above Edison (Ohio), Sequoyah above Mr Rogers (Oklahoma), Young above Farnsworth (Utah), Whitman above Pariseau (Washington) and Marquette above La Follette (Wisconsin)? Ham II (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC) Good catch - addressed. ~ HAL333 15:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC) It's good to see links for all the artists, even red links, but is it likely that the Arizona Bronze Atelier (which is clearly a bronze foundry) will ever get an article? I was the one who sorted Felix de Weldon as "Weldon, Felix de", but I now see that the Library of Congress, the US National Archives and most other authority control files at the artist's Wikidata item recommend "De Weldon, Felix". (See also 1, 2, 3 and 4.) Only the National Gallery of Art and the Netherlands Instute of Art History include "Weldon, Felix de" as an option. The MLA link above says "When de occurs with French names of one syllable, alphabetize under d ... otherwise, alphabetize by last name", but de Weldon was born in Austria. Done. ~ HAL333 19:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Should "Constitution Hall; Lansing, Michigan" and the rest have a comma instead of the semicolon? And should it be "Lansing, Michigan"? Ham II (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC) The first of the questions has been resolved and I've retracted the second. Ham II (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support! Ham II (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 07:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

=====Lead===== "...histories of the respective states." Perhaps link List of states in the United States at "states"? Done. ~ HAL333 14:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC) "On July 2, 1864, Congress established"-- should have "the" before "Congress". I beg to differ. ~ HAL333 14:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC) This nomination seems to have stopped in an odd state; @Ham II and Gerald Waldo Luis: have your concerns been addressed? --PresN 19:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: I beg redemption! I was sick for this whole semi-hiatus, so I was only able to edit mobile, and for some reason the app Wikipedia doesn't want me to go to project/talk pages. Anyway, I think the whole list is good for now, so I'm supporting. GeraldWL 07:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: Sorry for the impasse; I've resumed reviewing this nomination. Ham II (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The tables seem to have 2 rowscopes per row; only the "primary" column should be marked with `scope="row"`. --PresN 14:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. ~ HAL333 23:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts

• Why are the states yellow?

I was trying to make flags with white backgrounds more visible. Doesn't quite work, but I'm trying to fix it. ~ HAL333 13:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Why are the other cells the darker gray that is reserved for headers?

Isn't it just a normal column with scope? ~ HAL333 13:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Statue of John E. Kenna" is in yellow

Oops. Looks like Reywas92 already got to it. ~ HAL333 13:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• The reliance on the Architect of the Capitol's website is unfortunate when these statues have been covered in secondary sources

I don't consider the Architect of the Capitol a primary source. They didn't commission or sculpt the statues - they just house them. Similar to using the Louvre or MOMA as a source for works in their collection. But I might be wrong. ~ HAL333 13:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• The formatting and reliably of the sourcing passes

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Support --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "except for Virginia which" could link.
• "statues..." non-breaking space before the ellipsis per MOS:ELLIPSIS.
• ...commemoration." provide the source for this quote directly after the quote.
• "2000, Congress amended a law to allow states to replace their" when did Congress allow for two statues per state?

Added back the full quote for clarity. ~ HAL333 02:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Date placed" etc is more like "Year placed".
• I'm not sure the flags are anything other than decorative here.
• Felix de Weldon small d.
• "House corridor, 2nd Floor" what is this and why is "Floor" capitalised?
• Jean-Antoine Houdon hyphenated first name.

That's all I have on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Was able to address your concerns. Sorry for the tardiness. ~ HAL333 17:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Reywas92 Sorry to comment after this has been up for so long already but here are my thoughts:

• I know there's the separate main article for further prose details, but the lead is a little short. More specifically, I don't like that one of the three paragraphs is just about the Confederate statues, but the other subjects aren't mentioned at all, so this should have additional summarization of National Statuary Hall Collection#Demographics.

Expanded the lede. ~ HAL333 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• It could also count how many are bronze or marble and in each location and summarize the sculptors who have made multiple statues. I'm surprised the main article doesn't mention that at all either; like, Niehaus needs a shout-out for making eight of them including removals.

Done. ~ HAL333 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• This may be more work than you want to do, but I think it would be nice to have another column that gives in a sentence/sentence fragment why each subject is notable/why the state chose them.

I thought about doing that. Yeah, it would be a bit of work, but it would also dissuade the reader from clicking on these individual biographies and interacting with those articles - the real purpose of any list. ~ HAL333 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that's a very poor reason not to include descriptions. When you have a hundred names, the vast majority of which unfamiliar even to someone well versed in American history, a snippet will make people more likely to click on someone who sounds interesting out of such a large list. Now perhaps the detail in my current nom National Trails System is enough to satisfy a reader enough not to click through, but with just a hundred personal names, how I am supposed to know what biographies I might want to interact with? For those of my home state of Indiana, something as simple as "Governor during the Civil War" and "Civil War general who wrote Ben-Hur" would be enough to pique my interet. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not like having the descriptions column. I hope this list can still be promoted even though there's a bit of disagreement on this one thing. This is something we can easily sort out on the article's talk page and should not impact FL status. Let's get this list promoted already! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the reader is quite capable of determining what piques their interest and clicking on the article to learn more. A list does not need to have a summary of each entry. Imagine if we tried to summarize each film in a filmography or give an anatomical overview of each species in a list. Furthermore, much of the descriptions will be largely irrelevant as they are not the reasons the state selected them. Sure James Paul Clarke was a governor and senator, but that doesn't make him unique and doesn't even explain why Arkansas selected him. This is simply beyond the scope of this list. ~ HAL333 21:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

+1 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Generally, questions like these are above my pay grade, but this happens to be a question I had to research for my own nominations, and I couldn't find evidence that a list like this one needs an extra column with biographical information. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since the default sort is by state, you should merge the two state cells that are on top of each other in the first column (rowspan=2).
• I also don't think the first column needs to be yellow. Not a deal-breaker, but I usually prefer the default colors unless there's an explanatory reason.
• "Statue" in Note 1 should be capitalized to match what it's quoting
• Bronze and marble could be linked in the lead rather than in every row 100 times.
• The title of the ref for Helen Keller doesn't match the rest
• The main table uses "Year placed" but the Former uses "Date placed"
• Thomas Starr King has its precise location but none of the rest do, would be nice to have them all.

I decided to remove it. The sourcing is very scarce on the exact location of many of the statues, and it seemed weird to have the exact location of only a few... ~ HAL333 16:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This version before you started editing this has all of them, and looking through the sources and their respective articles, there are decent enough sources for every one of them, so I don't quite follow. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Shouldn't DC's Douglass statue be included?

That one's not technically part of the National Statuary Hall Collection. ~ HAL333 17:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If Douglass isn't part of the collection I'm not sure why you mentioned him in the lead now. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Reywas92^Talk 04:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll answer that last point: The statue was originally included in the list, but since the Architect of the Capitol's website clearly states the statue is not part of the collection, I said it should be removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reywas92 Sorry for the delay, but hopefully I have addressed all of your concerns. ~ HAL333 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs should probably be the publisher for ref 111
• fine otherwise

Reliability

• no issues

Verifiability

• seems fine throughout.
• Not much to say, thorough sourcing all around. Pass for source review, the top comment isn't pertinent enough to prevent this. . Aza24 (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the review, Aza. ~ HAL333 15:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)