Talk:Equestrian statue of Winfield Scott/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 14:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

AgnosticPreachersKid, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime! Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

AgnosticPreachersKid, I'm completed my review and re-review of your article and I assess it to be quite comprehensive and well-written like your other terrific articles illustrating the design and history of D.C.'s monuments. Following my reviews, I find that this article exceeds the criteria for Good Article status, however, I do have a few comments, questions, and suggestions that must be addressed before passage to Good Article status. Thank you! -- Caponer (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Caponer, thanks so much for reviewing the article! I've had the flu all week (hence my lack of activity), so it may take me a day or so to work on the improvements. I still feel under the weather. APK whisper in my ear 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • AgnosticPreachersKid, take your time sir and feel better soon! -- Caponer (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the topic, establishes the necessary context, and explains why the statue is notable.
• The image of the statue of Lieutenant General Winfield Scott at Scott Circle is licensed CC BY 2.0 and is therefore acceptable for use in this article.
• It should be mentioned in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the lede who considers the statues one of the worst in the city. I would add wording such as "it is considered one of the worst equestrian sculptures in the city by authors and historians" or something to that effect.
• The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

 Done APK whisper in my ear 04:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

History
Background

• In the second paragraph, it should be worded "...Congress on July 15, 1870, and on June 10, 1872."
• The selection of the sculptor by the Scott Memorial Commission comes before there is even mention of the commission's creation. I suggest introducing the creation of the commission, then have them selecting the sculptor in the second paragraph.
• The image of Henry Kirke Brown in 1870 has been released into the public domain and is free to use here.
• In the fifth paragraph of this subsection, Scott Circle is noted as having previously been known as "Jamaica." It should be noted that the land tract that the circle was later constructed on had been known as Jamaica, and not the circle itself. I found this here.
• This subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

 Done I don't have any information on the commission other than the one mention of it selecting the artist, so I removed the mention. APK whisper in my ear 04:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Reception

• The Scott monument around 1919 photograph has been released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• This subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.
• Note: Even though I pass by this statue at least twice a day, I never paid attention as to how fat General Scott looked while sitting on this malformed horse.

 Done APK whisper in my ear 04:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Later history

• National Park Service can be de-linked here, as it is wiki-linked in the "Background" subsection of the "History" section.
• This subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

 Done APK whisper in my ear 04:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Design and location

• It may be worth noting here that Scott Circle is considered the southeastern terminus of Embassy Row, and that the Embassy of Australia, Washington, D.C. is located on the circle facing out over the statue. This source could be utilized as a cited reference of this.
• This subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

 Done APK whisper in my ear 04:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• AgnosticPreachersKid, thank you for addressing each of my concerns and comments. I've re-reviewed the article and it is good for passage to Good Article status! Congratulations on a job well down and here's hoping you're feeling much better! -- Caponer (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2015 (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.