Talk:Gate to the Northwest Passage/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tags[edit]

  • ConcernedVancouverite, can you please explain your reasons for adding the original research and unreliable sources tags to the article? I do not see a reason for either. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding this edit, what is the harm in providing additional context that this sculpture is not the only one by the artist within the city? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, care to explain why you're in such a hurry to get blocked? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for what? (Serious question.)--Another Believer (Talk) 00:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not relevant whatsoever, and edit-warring to get it back in can lead to a block. You're making the article worse by adding junk like that, and ensuring it will be deleted. You want this kept: stop adding crap (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the edit once, which I have every right to do, and I honestly do not think the content is "junk". I am clearly stepping on toes here, though, unintentionally, so I will step away for a while and let others have a go at the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you do not have such a right. You added it, it was removed. You may not re-add it by reverting - you must gain new WP:CONSENSUS to add it through discussion on the article talkpage the very first time it's removed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I honestly did not know that was the procedure. Thanks for the lesson. (Because type can be hard to read, please trust that I am not being sarcastic here.) --Another Believer (Talk) 00:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the original research banner be removed since the inline tags have been removed? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this tag. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag in the prose. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the unreliable sources tag be removed? No one has indicated which sources in particular might be problematic. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unreliable sources tag since no one responded here or has identified questionable sources. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While "Frommer's" is being used as a ref, it should stay. That guide does not say "it's frequently on walking tours", so it most certainly is misquoting the source, AND is a questionable source (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the lead to say "The sculpture has been included in walking tours..." --Another Believer (Talk) 16:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is amounting to original research. The idea of adding a sentence to every single thing listed in Frommer's for every single city suggesting, "This XXXX has been included in tours." is original research. If you can locate an independent reliable source that suggests it is an important part of walking tours then that would be the way to go to cite it. Otherwise it is you synthesizing your original research of reading a guidebook. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and for the love of all that is holy, when you suggest removing a tag, at least give a week before actionning it due to no response. Most of us have day jobs - and this article is not on my watchlist because it's anything I have an interest in - it's only there because of the administrative problems surrounding it. There's no rush (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the AfD discussion closed as keep, can the notability tag be removed from the article? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of sculpture[edit]

Regarding this edit, I think the fact that the sculpture was vandalized is relevant. One contributor weighed in above, expressing the opposite. Would other contributors mind weighing in on the matter as well? Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let the sources decide it if is relevant. If the curator who wrote the registry entry thought it was important, why not mention it? It's an event in the topic's history. I'm for including. The Interior (Talk) 04:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding trivial incidents such as minor past vandalism is overdetailed and reduces the over usefulness of the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What sculpture hasn't been vandalized? It's a useless piece of trivia that serves to do nothing but reduce the quality of the article (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be included as well. The reasons for removal seems to be empty arguments of "Its trivial because it's useless." You could apply that sort of reasoning to virtually anything. (Who care how big it is? That's useless to know! Who cares what year it was made in? That's trivia!) As long as we have reliable sources reporting on it, and there's not problems with undue weight, it should be included. (With an article this size, its not like its getting too long any time soon, and I don't think we're proposing making it be half of the article's content, so I feel we're fine here.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's trivia that doesn't improve the article. As mentioned, public works of art are often vandalised. This particular event is documented in the public art registry entry, but aside from that, it doesn't appear to be a big deal to anybody. - Whpq (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to have a double standard when it comes to Canadian and 'marican art. See:Cloud Gate. It made it to featured status and is full of unsourced trivia and fan cruft. I guess articles about our Canadian works are just doomed to be stubs forever and never reach B class, let alone GA or FA if editors keep removing sourced material. The vandalism and the guy hanging himself are both sourced and should be included.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like a double standard at all. The "In Popular Culture" section of that article is filled with independent reliably sourced references for the appearance of the art in popular culture. If there was the equivalent of the Chicago Tribune articles as in that article for this one mentioned that a guy hung himself off of it in a serial then it would be independent reliably sourced here as well. If the only source is the actual serial that isn't reported on in independent reliable sources then it is original research trivia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't a conspiracy then why did you create more work at commons with three lame deletion requests? One, two, and three. You may not like art in Vancouver but that is no reason to delete the articles and find hokey website images of it to waste our time at commons with.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is far from sufficient proof to establish a legitimate "conspiracy". While I encourage you to keep arguing your point about the vandalism, please stop with conspiracy stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that the vandalism bit should be added, your anti-Canada conspiracy theory is completely unfounded. You're not going to convince anyone with that extremely flawed angle. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Serge ... I'm Canadian ... pretty sure this isn't some bizarrely-considered "anti-Canada conspiracy theory". By the way Serge, you clearly misread my comment on the AFD for this article .. very badly, in fact (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's very obvious: if someone keeps adding useless trivia to the article, it would reduce the quality, and random AFD passers-by would be more likely to !vote "delete" ... I think it was pretty clear (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that much is obvious, it could lead to more nominations. But not in getting deleted. Regardless of nominations, it seems like its just going to be "Kept" due to meeting the GNG and AFD is not clean up arguments being thrown out there. (Like how it was kept this time.) Perhaps I have too much faith in AFD or in people following up on WP:BEFORE though. I guess I figured you'd be discussing policy at the AFD, but not counting on people being careless... Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the consensus re: vandalism? To include, or not to include? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good article?[edit]

Would anyone be interested in helping to promote the article to Good status? I don't think there is much more content to add. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This diff shows edits made to the article after my initial draft. Following are the parts that were controversial:

  • "Chung Hung's other works displayed in Vancouver include Spring (1981) and Clouds (1991)."
  • "On July 4, 1988, the sculpture was vandalized when someone painted white dots on its surface. However, the paint was quickly removed."
  • "In 2006, the work was mentioned in a Sunday serial thriller for The Province by author Daniel Kalla. In the series, a character is found dead, hanging from the sculpture."

Thoughts? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would fail on many fronts, including length, quality, quality or ref's, importance to the world. Thankfully the 3 things above were removed via consensus DP 23:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was the issue resolved via consensus? I, TheInterior, Sergecross73 and Canoe1967 thought the vandalism bit should be included. ConcernedVancouverite, Bwilkins (you) and Whpq thought it should not be included. If anything, and unless I am overlooking other opinions by mistake, it appears more people think it should be included. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am not sure there is a length requirement for Good articles. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still in disagreement with BWilkins on this. I would include the above facts if I was writing the article, provided they were mentioned in reliable sources. There is some grey area between "detailed" and "crufty", but I think these fall on the right side. The Interior (Talk) 00:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be fair if I added the content back to the article, nominated the article for Good status, and we could let a neutral GA reviewer make a decision? --Another Believer (Talk) 05:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, as consensus was to remove it. As much as consensus can change, that info was pure trivia and reduced the quality of this article to something I almost scrubbed back down to a stub DP 10:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a consensus has been reached. As I mentioned above, more people thought the content should be kept. I think it is fair to have a neutral good article reviewer make a decision. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, add about a thousand more words, make it resemble some other randomly-chosen good article regarding a piece of artwork and go ahead. Just don't add the crappy stuff back in. I'm about as neutral as you can get: I only came by this article due to admin-related issues DP 17:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat my above comment: "Was the issue resolved via consensus? I, TheInterior, Sergecross73 and Canoe1967 thought the vandalism bit should be included. ConcernedVancouverite, Bwilkins (you) and Whpq thought it should not be included. If anything, and unless I am overlooking other opinions by mistake, it appears more people think it should be included." I think you are being a bit unfair here. Why are you opposed to having a neutral editor (meaning one who has not participated in this discussion so far) review my work through a peer review or good article review? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't you reading what I say? Seems to be an issue. DP 20:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? I acknowledge your preference that the content not be included. I understand that two other editors feel the same way. I also understand that four editors (including myself) have stated a preference to have the content included. How does this mean the information should not be included? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read about 4 lines up: "So, add about a thousand more words, make it resemble some other randomly-chosen good article regarding a piece of artwork and go ahead". Oh, and if you believe that a "4-3" !vote determined consensus to include, you really seem to be missing the point of Wikipedia. WP:CONSENSUS has a definition, and we don't go by majority vote - we go by policy. So rather than dick around here arguing semantics, why not get to work adding a couple of thousand more words to make this even CLOSE to being a slightly-higher-rated article (you won't get close to "Good", yet) DP 21:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that, and the text immediately following, which says "Just don't add the crappy stuff back in." Just because you think something is "crappy" does not mean you are right. I understand how consensus works, but I am not sure which policy you are using to support your argument, nor did I say that I was right because there are 4 votes against 3. All I am asking for is that the info be included and that I submit a review request from someone who has not participated in the discussion thus far. This doesn't have to be so difficult. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you already know, if there's contentious material included at the time of the review. A GA review is for worthy articles, not articles with trivia section, it's an automatic fail. But, you knew that, or else you'd be doing something useful like improving the document instead of not reading my comments and arguing in a ridiculous manner (indeed, you wouldn't be insulting me either ... but look at that!) DP 22:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not sure how to respond to that. So, can I re-add the content and submit the article for review, or are you going to turn that into a reason to block me or something else absurd? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and re-added the part about the serial thriller, and included one additional bit about its description of the sculpture. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also added two additional Frommer's links, but kept all three guides as a single reference/inline citation. People should have the ability to visit any of the three guides. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh...more insults, not surprising - you haven't put forth an intelligent argument yet, so you stoop that low. You're quite a piece of work, just like the the piece of art. You know not to user Frommer's as an WP:RS. Try again DP 23:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a collaborative or constructive discussion. I will finish my draft of the article and submit for peer or good article review. I am sorry if this work is not to your liking. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how am I supposed to work on the article then? Do I need to bullet point each content inclusion here on the talk page for discussion? Do I submit a request for comment? I have written six good articles for sculptures. Never have I encountered such a difficult process for such a short and simple article. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Your insults are NOT conducive to collaborative or constructive discussion. I'm keeping my calm because hey, I'm a grown up. Which part of "you don't have consensus to re-add" were you missing? You obviously are typically a positive editor, but you've thrown that out the window not only on this article, but with your brutal behaviour towards a neutral third party. Never have I encountered such a ... well, not gonna say it, but the word "obstinate" was part of itDP 23:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Can we get back to a real discussion? Please see the below section regarding the Sunday serial thrilled. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, this is getting far too confrontational here. I don't think we are going to find a resolution if the tone continues like this. AnotherBeliever has suggested bringing in a third-party reviewer to look at the content. I think that is probably the only way that we can get some closure here. There's been a bad vibe between you two since the initial dispute over this article, and it's only getting worse. It's sad - you both are experienced, hardworking editors. I really think this discussion needs a reboot - a third party reviewer would hopefully help with that.The Interior (Talk) 22:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I started two sections below for discussion about two of the three pieces of content up for discussion. I plan to start a third discussion for the last bit as well. I had hoped to include the content then submit the article for review, but that plan was not acceptable for whatever reason. The Interior, if you can think of a better way to get feedback from a third party reviewer, please let me know. Or, you can contribute to the discussions below. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday serial thriller[edit]

I would like to include the following content in the article. I added it to the article, but my work was reverted. "In 2006, the work was mentioned in a Sunday serial thriller for The Province by author Daniel Kalla. In the series, the sculpture is described as "a massive Greek letter pi",[1] and later a character is found dead, hanging from the sculpture.[2][3]"

References
  1. ^ Kalla, Daniel (December 10, 2006). "The Sunday Serial Thriller: Chapter 1: By Daniel Kalla". The Province. Vancouver, British Columbia: Postmedia Network. Retrieved March 5, 2014.
  2. ^ Kalla, Daniel (November 27, 2006). "The Story So Far: Here's where our first nine chapters have taken us -- Author Daniel Kalla: Chapter 1". The Province. Vancouver, British Columbia: Postmedia Network. Retrieved July 12, 2013.
  3. ^ Kalla, Daniel (December 4, 2006). "The Story So Far: Here's where our first 10 chapters have taken us". The Province. Vancouver, British Columbia: Postmedia Network. Retrieved July 12, 2013.

This is clearly related to the sculpture and is an example of how it has infiltrated popular culture. Should this be included? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, as has been explained many times:
  1. we try to avoid "in pop culture" references in an encyclopedia.
  2. Daniel Kalla is not a well-known, established author
  3. The Province is an extremely minor, really non-notable publication
  4. The body on top of the sculpture is a clear rip-off of a scene from Bon Cop, Bad Cop, released earlier the same year.
  5. It's therefore impossible to call the appearance of this piece of art in a non-notable serial by a non-notable author in a non-notable publication as "pop culture"
DP 00:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. Forget I used the words "popular culture". I am not proposing an "in popular culture" section. I just meant to say that one work was directly referenced in another. 3. A non-notable publication with a Wikipedia article? 4. That appears to be original research and unreferenced. 5. An author wrote a serial thriller for a notable publication, and in doing so decided to choose a specific work, name the work, include a description, and incorporate the work as part of a plot. I think that is worth mentioning in an article about a specific work. There is no harm in including two sentences about something that is directly related to the subject. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "barely notable, third-rate publication"...does that sound better, because it's far more descriptive. Have you actually seen the "article" on The Province? That's a good idea on how "notable" it is DP 10:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DangerousPanda, I'm with you in general on keeping out collections of trivia from our articles. I know it can be frustrating keeping this stuff out, I've a couple articles on my watchlist where it's constantly creeping back in, and it feel Sisyphusean. But I don't think that's what AB is trying to do here - he's an experienced Good/Featured Article writer, and he's just trying to cover the topic in detail. This sort of thing, when placed in context within an appropriate section, with a solid reference, is not the IPC sludge we want to keep out. Just a few points on your statements above re: The Province, and author D. Kalla. The Province is not a barely notable, third-rate publication. This is the largest circulation daily in Vancouver, and in British Columbia. It's also one of the oldest publications still running in B.C. (I think the Victoria paper has them beat) Though I think their editorial positions are a bit backward sometimes, this is unarguably a major publication in the region. (In the coffee shop where I am sitting at least two people in my eyeline have it in their hands!) As for Mr. Kalla - the fact that he is redlinked is more a reflection of the poor state of our Canlit articles than an indication of his notability. Do a search on him, he's got five popular thrillers out, publishes through a major Cdn publishing house, and has reviews in the National Post, Globe and Mail, as well as our west-coast papers. I think I'll put together a stub for him, actually. The Interior (Talk) 22:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you work in the news industry, you apparently gain a better perspective on quality of newspapers :-) DP 01:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One week later, with no other opinions expressed regarding this content. DangerousPanda, your last comment here is ambiguous to me. Are you ok with the inclusion of this content, given The Interior's comment? --Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no ambiguity whatsoever. Sorry you were unable to find consensus for the proposed changes. ES&L 18:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. The smiley face at the end of your comment made me think that perhaps you were accepting The Interior's response as a reason to include the content. So, here we are, with one person (me) advocating for content to be included. We have another contributor who support's inclusion, and is also arguing that both the publication and the author are notable (which goes against your argument for not including the content). You are holding strong that the content should not be included. No others have participated in the discussion. I am not looking for a group of editors to come and agree with me, but I do think more discussion is required to reach some sort of conclusion here. I do not think one person's argument should outweigh others, and there does not appear to be much middle ground here. Would it be appropriate to submit a request for comment, or is there a more appropriate way in which to recruit participation in this discussion? An article peer review? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can list this at RFC. For God's sake, however, don't re-write the original question and make me answer all over again. DP 21:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Another Believer (Talk) 21:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other works[edit]

I would like to include the following content in the article. I added it to the article, but my work was reverted. "Chung Hung's other works displayed in Vancouver include Spring (1981) and Clouds (1991)." This helps provide context. Gate to the Northwest Passage was not chosen randomly to appear in a public park in Vancouver. The artist had a relationship with the city. Multiple works by him are on display there. Isn't that relevant? --Another Believer (Talk) 03:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I would like to include the following content in the article. I added it to the article, but my work was removed. "On July 4, 1988, the sculpture was vandalized when someone painted white dots on its surface. However, the paint was quickly removed." May we discuss whether or not this bit of content should be included? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WTF. How can you argue reasonably intelligently on one hand, then throw this kinda junk on the fire and undo any good work you've done anywhere else DP 01:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am reasonably intelligent, and because I think it's worth mentioning if it was included in a reliable source about the subject. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the most trivial piece of trivia that's never appeared in a trivia game. It has as much place in the article as a red hot poker has in one's nasal cavity DP 01:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This kind, or this kind? Here is my thinking. This article mentions annual wax coatings and instances in which it has been used as a reference point for gatherings, or as a prop. This one mentions a missing plaque. This article includes theft attempts, associated damage and even nipple airbrushing. This one has a sentence about its prototype and also includes the phrase "Satan's Testicle". None of this content was questioned when I promoted each of these articles to Good status, hence my habit of including this type of information. I think these tell us a little about why works of art are unique, and how they interact with their environment. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment[edit]

Please see the above three sections regarding the inclusion of three separate pieces of content. Additional commentary is above. I am not sure if it is preferable to add new comments here, or to the appropriate sections above, but feedback from neutral reviewers is appreciated regardless.

Just to be clear (I am repeating this from above), this diff shows the three parts that are currently being discussed:

  • "Chung Hung's other works displayed in Vancouver include Spring (1981) and Clouds (1991)."
  • "On July 4, 1988, the sculpture was vandalized when someone painted white dots on its surface. However, the paint was quickly removed."
  • "In 2006, the work was mentioned in a Sunday serial thriller for The Province by author Daniel Kalla. In the series, a character is found dead, hanging from the sculpture."

Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I believe I have met Another Believer in person, & I recognize BWilkins as an established Wikipedian.
My gut reaction to these 3 points is this:
  • The first is clearly relevant to the article. They are other works by the artist that can be seen in Vancouver.
  • The second is, at best, doubious. All public sculptures have been vandalized at some point in their existence, sad to say. So unless the vandalism is somehow notable -- related to the composition or content of the sculpture, representing public reaction to the sculpture, or very destructive -- it's not that important.
  • The third, in my opinion, is relevant. However, I know I am in the minority in this regard; "X in Popular Culture" categories or articles have had a difficult time of being accepted on Wikipedia. (I'm guessing it all derives from a rant Jimmy Wales posted to the mailing list back in 2005 or 2006 about the time he was showing Wikipedia to people & the article he picked was little more than a list of appearances or mentions of the article subject on The Simpsons. Since then many Wikipedians have agreed that "X in Popular Culture" is a bad idea, so there is a sizable party opposed to it, in any form.) It would be easier to persuade people to include something like this if this sculpture was in a widely accepted classic of Western or World literature or film.
One item, however, that I would expect covered in this article, is an explanation of the "Northwest Passage" in the title; not everyone who reads Wikipedia knows what this refers to. One place to start to fix this oversight would be to look at Northwest passage. (Maybe if this omission were addressed, one or more of the other 3 points would be more likely to find acceptence in this article.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in this discussion. (And for providing full disclosure. I must admit, though, I am not sure I can connect your username to an in-person interaction. Do feel free to remind me via my talk page or e-mail, if you wish!) Regarding the first blurb, I believe multiple people at this point have confirmed that inclusion is appropriate. Am I able to add this back into the article, BWilkins/DP? I'll let the second one go, though I could certainly point to other sculpture articles that mention vandalism. As for the third blurb, it is not as though I am proposing a section or article about popular culture. This is a single mention of one work within another work (by a notable author in a notable publication, based on above discussion). Also, I will look into adding a bit about the northwest passage. Thanks for the suggestion. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, llywrch is the only person to comment despite my attempt to gain feedback via the peer review and request for comment processes. Based on llywrch's comment above, and others preceding, I have added back the sentence about the artist's other works in Vancouver. The other two bits need further discussion. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gate to the Northwest Passage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I know you've waited over a month and a half for a review, but I have good news! I'm stuck in a tin can for 5 hours tomorrow late night UTC, so I'm going to use that time wisely to review this article. I expect to have the review posted in the early morning hours UTC the following day. (Approximately less than 36 hours from this post.) I look forward to reading and reviewing this article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for offering to review this article! ----Another Believer (Talk) 18:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Article is close, but it needs some work
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Needs improvement, see prose review
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Seems stable enough, good work being done on the talkpage
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    The captions need some work. All say "the sculpture in XXXX." Talk about what is in the background or to the side. Include information about the curved design. It needs something to not be so mundane.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Very close.

Prose review[edit]

  • Using an ellipsis like is used once in each section including the lead at the beginning or ending of a quote is unnecessary. These are intended for use when shortening a quote in the center.
  • The background and description subhead should just say Background.
  • Why was there a need to commemorate Vancouver's arrival? Some background about this would round the article better.
  • Why is there a need to commemorate anything? There is not a source specifically addressing why, so I'd rather not infer. ----Another Believer (Talk) 18:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there may be some misunderstanding due to how I formulated that question. Commemorations are normally for observing or anniversaries of specific events or situations. Why are we saying the sculpture is for a commemorate someones arrival, without explaining the reason for need for the commemoration? What I mean is, why his his arrival important? This may be obvious to you, but to myself, and many readers may not understand. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. See diff. This is according to the City of Vancouver, which says,"The parameters for the juried competition operated by Parks Canada were to create 'a monument in Vanier Park to commemorate Captain George Vancouver,' the first European to sail into Burrard Inlet, in 1792." ----Another Believer (Talk) 22:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you list the measurements of the sculpture, the first time is listed in metres (4.6) but the second (3'x3') and third (26'x28') time by foot. This should be standardized, and since it is about a Canadian related topic, I'd recommend using metres. Also, look at using the convert template at Wikipedia:CONVERT#Range_of_2_values for the second and third measurements.
  • The use of adverse in the first sentence of the Reception section does not need quotation marks.
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph in the same section should start: "A 1983 article published in..."
For now this is all I have. I will be completing a second read-through but I don't think there are any further issues. Let me know when these are addressed or responded to. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I assume that the dimensions here are in feet, despite being a Canadian website? ----Another Believer (Talk) 18:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. It looks that way. When its written like that using the Prime (symbol), it only seems to be used for feet (for distances). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the other sources say 4.6 m (15 ft), so I am not worried about the article's accuracy. I guess I am just surprised the Canadian source used feet. ----Another Believer (Talk) 22:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It surprised me too. Either way, Review Passed! Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! ----Another Believer (Talk) 05:04, 12 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gate_to_the_Northwest_Passage/Archive_1&oldid=1136752828"