Jump to content

Talk:Broken Circle/Spiral Hill

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Broken Circle/Spiral Hill in 2021
Broken Circle/Spiral Hill in 2021
  • ... that the artist Robert Smithson's work Broken Circle/Spiral Hill (pictured) was inspired by a 1953 flooding disaster in the Netherlands, and he felt "haunted" by a glacial erratic boulder? Source: Several sources: Smithson, Robert; Holt, editor, Nancy (1979). The Writings of Robert Smithson. New York University Press. p. 182. ISBN 0-8147-3395-6; and Shapiro, Gary (1997). "Uncanny Materiality" in the book Earthwards Robert Smithson and Art After Babel. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 111. ISBN 9780520212350; and Marijnissen, Hans (2011-10-25). "Na veertig jaar is de Emmer' cirkel gesloten". Trouw (in Dutch).
    • ALT1:... that the artist Robert Smithson suggested that the boulder in the center of his piece Broken Circle/Spiral Hill (pictured) was a "warning from the Ice Age"? Source: same sources as above
    • ALT2:... that Robert Smithson made a land art piece (pictured) with a boulder in the center that he suggests is a warning from the Ice Age? Source: same sources as above

Created by Netherzone (talk) and Husky (talk). Nominated by Netherzone (talk) at 13:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good. My only question is whether CC By 2.0 with Attribution is a concern or not for the image. I don't think so, but in the interest of being cautious I was looking at the main image on the article; not the hook. This image is free and clear. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the hooks, ALT0 is a bit awkward sounding to me, but ALT1 is interesting, short, and effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcr25 (talk • contribs)
  • I'm honestly not sure either Netherzone. I'd say at this point, the nomination has been approved so it's waiting until someone with authority moves it into the queue. I kind of assumed whoever does that would look at the nomination review and act based on that. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P3

Measurements

[edit]

Avi8tor you have changed the measurements in the article twice now to your preferred version. I left a message on your talk page asking that you self-revert but did not hear back. The article now has a confusing mixture of feet and metrics. Your edit is contrary to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which states: In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the main unit is generally a U.S. customary unit. This article, which was created in American English using U.S. units of measurements (feet) has strong ties to the U.S. as it is a work by a major American 20th century artist, who himself used "feet", as do the citations, as well as many books, exhibition catalogues and monographs of his work. The article was vetted by multiple experienced editors during the DYK review process, and no one objected to the use of feet. I will be restoring the original measurements in feet with conversions. Thank you for your interest in the article and the work of Robert Smithson, and all best. Netherzone (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone You must think I spend all day on Wikipedia to reply the same day! I did not see any message on my talk page from you. This piece of artwork is in the Netherlands, you think it has strong ties to the United States, I think it has stronger ties to the Netherlands and therefore should follow the first line in the Manual of Style. You are the one reverting edits, twice, to what you consider stronger ties. The citations are from American publications in units used in those publications, there is no proof the artist used feet. Tesla and other US vehicles are designed in metric units, as are all vehicles designed in the United States by all major US car manufacturers, as well as John Deere and Caterpillar, but have inch dimensions first in articles which counters your claim. I believe the intent of the MOS is to use the country the article is in, as the basis of which unit is primary. Which is the stronger tie, the country or the artist? You think it's the artist, I think it's the country, it's subjective, probably because I live in a metric country and you do not? Manufacturers publish brochures with units for their intended audience, as is the case for cars sold in the US, but the design is in millimetres. And by the way, it's metric (unit) not metrics (plural) which are measures of quantitative assessment. I will leave the article as you left it, it's better to have these discussions before reverting, but please give this some thought, and all the best to you. Avi8tor (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded on your talk page, please check it. If you do not receive my message there or cannot view it for some reason, I will copy it here as a service to you. In a nutshell regarding this article, what the published, independent reliable sources say and how the artist himself described the work in his published writings and working drawings are the stronger ties rather than where the work resides. Netherzone (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broken_Circle/Spiral_Hill&oldid=1206445005"