Talk:Missouri State Capitol
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Large portions of the article are copied verbatim from the first external link (The MO Secretary of State's site), starting from "The Missouri State Capitol is notable for its architectural features" and continuing through "...the Fountain of the Centaurs are the most outstanding features on the north grounds," with no footnote. I am not familiar enough with wikipedia style to attempt a fix myself, but it ought to be changed.Trinite 21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Added paragraph on the whispering gallery and dome-top viewing platform.Trinite 21:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I added the sentence "The grand staircase is flanked by large heroic bronze statues of Merriwether Lewis and William Clark, and the second floor displays bronze busts of many famous Missourians." within the architecture section.Trinite 21:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to reorganize the article into three sections for architecture, art, and history? A whole lot of the history section as it now stands is given over to architectural description.Trinite 21:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, go for it! I added some images and made a few formatting edits, but other than that I don't think anyone has really done much with this article in awhile. NickInBigD (Hey!) 05:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Up until February or March 2008, this was a substantial, well written article (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_State_Capitol&oldid=193032704). Now it is a stub, and one with two blank sections. What happened?
Reading earlier comments it looks like the material may have been copied from another website without proper footnoting. If this is the case, I would propose that the article be reverted to the previous text with properly anotated footnotes added. If this is not the case, why was this rather well-written article deleted?
Also, could someone add content to the two "dangling" sections, ie "Rotunda Chandelier Incident" and "Sources"?
I think this article was over-edited.
- An investigation of the history shows that there was a large amount of vandalism that was over corrected, deleting pretty much most of the article. I've restored it that pre-vandalism state. The article may well need to be edited, however, to ensure that it conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. Rebel At —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)