Talk:Angkor I/Archive 1

Sources

--Another Believer _(Talk) 03:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Copy Edit Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi, Another Believer:

I am handling your copy edit request for this article. As I read through your article, I will make minor changes to it directly, and I will list other suggestions here.

Thank you for your time, improvements to the article, and suggestions. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox suggestions

• The infobox should include an image of the sculpture
  • Agreed. I tend to avoid uploading images of copyrighted works, however. I did find these:
• http://www.artscouncillo.org/assets/angkor-Kelly.jpg
• http://portlandtribune.com/images/artimg/00003464774281.jpg
• http://media.oregonlive.com/lake_oswego/photo/13585326-standard.jpg

They come from a Google image search, but I don't know that they can be used. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph suggestions

• Include a map that shows the location of the sculpture in Millennium Plaza Park. The map could further include an inset map that shows the location of Millennium Plaza Park in Lake Oswego, Oregon, especially given that a Wiki article about Millennium Plaza Park does not exist.
  • Thanks for the suggestion. I am not familiar with adding coordinates to the article, but I did add the "coords missing" template to the article. WikiProject Oregon members are pretty good about adding coords to articles, so I imagine someone will take care of that soon. If a map is added though, it will probably just be to illustrate the sculpture's location in the state or region, and not within Millennium Park Plaza, which I assume is not a very large park. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• In the lead paragraph, the height is specified as "14 feet (4.3 m)"; in the infobox, the "Dimensions" are specified as "4.3 m (14 ft)". I don't like the inconsistency. Given that the sculpture is located in the US, the lead paragraph seems correct. In the infobox, you set the "height_imperial" parameter to 14, which seems correct; I don't know why the infobox then displays meters first. I'll work on this problem later....
  • Yes, this has come up before. Infobox displays are pre-determined and internationalized, so there is little to do here. The inconsistency does not bother me, though, and I am pretty picky about these sorts of things. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• In the lead paragraph, remove the link "Ford Family Foundation". It actually links to the article "Hallie Ford", which contains minimal information about the "Ford Family Foundation".
  • OK. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    •  Done --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Description and history suggestions

• I have problems with the "External images" block

1. From Template:External media#Where_to_use: "The external media template should be removed as soon as a replacement of adequate quality and accuracy is available in WP:COMMONS";
2. Even more important, as the reader, I really want to see a photo of the finished sculpture, not a photo of a piece of the sculpture in transit;
3. The same information is repeated as reference #5.

(Can't you just run and take a photo of the sculpture yourself, then upload it to Wikimedia Commons?)

I wish it were that simple, but no. The sculpture is probably copyrighted, so the images certainly could not be uploaded to Commons. One could possibly be uploaded here at English Wikipedia under a fair use license. Hence the inclusion of the External image template. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• "gesturally and roughly finished".[1][2]

Only citation [1] contains this phrase.

Right. But the second source includes the description "large scale" and helps to verify other info such as the year, etc. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• "the Portland-based company which represents Kelly.[2][7]"

Both citations come from the same source--The Oregonian. Multiple citations will give a stronger impression to the reader if they come from different sources.

• At this point in the copy edit, I'm starting to feel that the article contains too many citations. Yes, I know what Wikipedia:Citing sources says: "editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information contained in an article". Still, I prefer its guideline: "sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged".

For such a short article, you've used reference #2 nine times, and it's only a 285-word newspaper article. You've used reference #9 eight times, and it's only a 431-word article from the same newspaper; moreover, it's an appeal....

• "According to Nancy Nye, executive director of the Arts Council of Lake Oswego, the sculpture is prominent in the park and 'provides a gateway to the lake' "

As soon as Nancy Nye leaves this position, your Wiki article will become out-of-date(i.e. this sentence sounds like a newspaper article, not a Wikipedia article).

Sure, but I figured there were many sources that mentioned Nye specifically and not just "the executive director". Similarly, I did not want to keep writing "the executive director" though out the article. She was a key figure in this subject's history and even had her own letters published in local papers. I think her name is worth keeping, but I would be interested to know what others think as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Despite my many suggestions, you're a good writer. I will finish the copy edit tomorrow.

LukasMatt (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! Looking forward. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

Image for Infobox

http://www.artscouncillo.org/assets/angkor-Kelly.jpg

I like this photo **A LOT** because it shows the sculpture with a beautiful background and a relaxed, smiling Lee Kelly. (I completely understand your hesitation about uploading images to Wiki. I always have the same feeling. )

LukasMatt (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, great image, but one that can be uploaded to Wikipeda? --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems unlikely we can use this image as it is assumed to be copyrighted unless the Arts Council releases it. Someone could contact them if desired. Otherwise, it shouldn't be too hard to get another photo, though likely it would be without the artist. I could probably take one soon. --Esprqii (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Esprqii: That would be wonderful. I wish that, at least until then, we could include an image of Lee Kelly, but no such luck there either. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Copy Edit Request (part 2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Permanent installation suggestions

• "In an interview published by The Oregonian, Nye said, 'Lee Kelly is a living legend and the pride of Oregon's artistic community. And his studio is right here in Clackamas County. He's a local treasure.'[2]"

The cited article in The Oregonian does not contain this quotation. [The quotation is actually in References #7 and #9.]

Wow, thank you for finding this error. Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• "The council's board chair also stressed the urgent need..."

You've got the opportunity here to use a name (Shari Newman) besides Nancy Nye--take it.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• "On November 1, The Oregonian reported that the council's director was certain enough money had been raised to keep Angkor I in Lake Oswego permanently, as part of its Gallery Without Walls public art program,[9]"

The cited article in The Oregonian does not contain any indication that the council's director was certain enough money had been raised. In fact, this newspaper article, entitled "Lead Donors Urgently Needed to Save Landmark Lake Oswego Sculpture by Lee Kelly", says just the opposite.

The citation at the end of the sentence is used to verify the monetary aspect of the sentence. Ref 9 is used mid-way through the sentence to verify the Gallery Without Walls program. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Kelly and the Elizabeth Leach Gallery each donated $5,000..."

Might need to remind the reader here who Kelly is

Only one Kelly is mentioned throughout the article. There should be no need for further disambiguation. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• "the Ford Family Foundation and the Oregon Arts Commission had awarded a $10,000 matching grant"

Like in the lead paragraph, remove the Ford Family Foundation link

I disagree. I think the link should appear at least once, especially since I assume there are multiple "Ford Foundations". --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• "All funding was provided by private businesses, foundations and individuals; none came from city or state funds.[8][9]"

References #8 and #9 are not good support for this sentence because these newspaper articles were written before all funds for the purchase had been received.

The source states that the campaign is "entirely dependent" on these types of contributions. That's enough for me! Also, you can view the list of donors in Nye's reader's letter to confirm that no city or state funds were received. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• "The council planned a commemoration ceremony at the sculpture's permanent location; expected attendees were Kelly, Mayor Kent Studebaker, and members of the Ford Family Foundation and the Oregon Arts Commission.[2][11]"

Has the commemoration ceremony already occurred? If yes, then you should be able to tell us who actually attended (not who is "expected" to attend). If no, then the verb tense should probably be "plans" and "expected attendees are".

I could not find a source to confirm if the ceremony occurred. I think it best not to change to a future tense. If a ceremony was not held over the past 7 months, we should not assume that one is still being planned. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Several days later"

Probably should use the exact date (November 7, 2013). You're trying to give a sense of chronology here, but there's too much intervening material since the last actual date that you used (November 5).

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Reception suggestions

• Should add an "expand section" template to this section (and don't forget the "coords missing" template for the lead paragraph)

• An "expand" template should not be added unless we know there is additional material to incorporate. The coords missing template is at the bottom of the article. I know who to ask to enter the coordinates. Will submit a request. Request submitted. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete the whole sentence about Nancy Nye
  • Why? Her comments are relevant, especially as the head of an arts council. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

1. The "Reception" section should contained unbiased critiques;
2. Your article really overworks Nancy Nye. (Don't some labor laws apply here? )

I swear, I am not actually Nancy Nye! (In all seriousness, I think she cannot be avoided. She is obviously directly connected to the subject, and using her name should not be problematic given her multiple submissions to papers about the sculpture. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

See also suggestions

• I would delete this entire section unless you can give the reader an exact link to a reference about Kelly or Angkor I in the "Sculpture of the United States" article, the Oregon portal, or the Visual Arts portal.

• Other GA sculpture articles that I have written (Shemanski Fountain, The Quest, Kvinneakt) contain the same See also link. I would say that, for the sake of consistency, it should stay. The portals are certainly appropriate. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

References suggestions

• References #3 and #12 are the exact same letter to readers.

• Yes, but I am including both references to verify that the letter appears in two separate publications. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• For Reference #12, shouldn't the title be "Readers' Letters: Angkor I added to collection, thanks to donors"? (like in Reference #3)

• Yes. The titles appear the same to me. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• For Reference #13, use the "website=" parameter rather than the "work=" parameter and link it to the home page of art ltd.

• art ltd. is the name of the magazine, therefore the work parameter is appropriate. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Think that completes the copy edit.

--LukasMatt (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so for your time and assistance. You found some errors in my work and I very much appreciate your attention to detail. I believe most of your concerns have been addresses or at least received responses, but I will double check. Your have helped to improve this article! Please let me know if you have any final thoughts. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I note that the plaque makes specific reference to being inspired by Angkor Wat, but that is not referenced in the article. Is that mentioned in any source? --Esprqii (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Funny, I don't recall specifically coming across references to Angor Wat, just his trip to Southeast Asia in general. And I figured I could not mention Angkor Wat based on the plaques, as that would be considered original research, right? Would this work? --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That source looks good. Between the Cambodia tour, the name, and the appearance, it's a pretty safe assertion. You could also mention in the caption for the plaque that "...the plaque indicates that Angkor Wat was an inspiration..." --Esprqii (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, is it worth mentioning the existence of Angkor Wat II? --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Looks like you have another project to complete. --Esprqii (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Short and sweet. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Angkor I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is well-written, neutral, and stable. It is appropriately referenced. To make it sufficiently comprehensive, I added a sentence that briefly introduced the sculptor. Though I think the article passes GA, if this were FA I would question the relevance of the high level of detail provided about the process of purchasing the work for permanent display. HOWEVER, the image of the sculpture is inappropriately licenced. Sculptures are copyrighted in the United States, and there is no Freedom of Panorama, so just because it is possible for a member of the public to photograph it, doesn't mean it's legal. The image needs to be taken off Commons and uploaded under a non-free use rationale. Once this is addressed, this article is OK for GA. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review this article. I do not know how to delete the image at Commons, but have it kept here with an appropriate rationale, so I have submitted a request here. Work in progress...! --20:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Esprqii: Pinging as an FYI, since you took the picture! :) --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see File:Angkor I sunny day - from Commons.JPG. -Another Believer _(Talk) 21:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe the issue has been addressed. A bot appears to be scheduled to come reduce the image size. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, looks like that is in the process of being sorted and has been shifted to a fair-use basis. Good work, thanks. This is done. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Angkor I sunny day.JPG

The file File:Angkor I sunny day.JPG, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Angkor I sunny day.JPG. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)