Talk:Rebirth (sculpture)/Archive 1

Sources

• http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2011/11/trimets_twilight_zone_bambi_sc.html
• http://trimet.org/pdfs/pm/PAAC/2011/PAAC-meeting-summary-10-19-11.pdf
• http://trimet.org/pdfs/pm/community_meetings/2011/TacMilwPark-Public-Art-June-27-2011.pdf
• http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2014/07/23/12022606/ (added as external link; not sure why the article is dated 2013 and the URL is dated 2014)
• http://djcoregon.com/dailyblog/2011/07/21/whats-not-to-love-about-this-giant-baby-faced-deer-statue/
• http://www.oregonlive.com/milwaukie/index.ssf/2011/11/artist_reacts_to_deer_baby_wit.html
• http://djcoregon.com/dailyblog/2011/11/10/lets-save-the-giant-baby-faced-deer-statue/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Can artist rendering be used under fair use?

I wonder, can an artist's rendering be used here under fair use? Two were released to the public and they are the only ways to illustrate the proposed work itself. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I uploaded two images and hope they are appropriate for inclusion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A concern following September 28, 2015, WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests Copy-edit

Resolved

I have a concern about a sentence that appears in the last paragraph of the section Rebirth (sculpture)#Description:

• The sculpture's color and dimensions were unchanged, but it would instead be made of glass reinforced concrete.

You've got "instead", but you don't say instead of what. Nowhere before this do I see any mention of the material the sculpture was to have been made of in the first design. If you don't know, or don't want to say, then the word "instead" should be removed. Corinne (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done @Corinne: This is very helpful. Thank you for your time and assistance. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What was it replaced by?

It is unclear if a replacement sculpture was planned or created. According to a TriMet web site, it looks like a Susan Zoccola leaf sculpture may have replaced this proposed sculpture, but it is not clear if this was a replacement or if it was planned all along.

Nice work as always, Another Believer. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Thank you. And great question. The sources never really said what works replaced the sculpture, if any, so I did not include them. I do plan to write about the public art installed at the MAX station, but I have not come across detailed information (by TriMet or otherwise) yet. The line did open up very recently, but I think we should soon have info about the Orange Line's public art, much like there is for the MAX's other lines. However, I think details about public art at the station belong on the station's article, not this one. If I do come across sources that mentions a work to replace this one, I would then add a blurb here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Is there any indication that this sculpture isn't entirely of local interest? czar 05:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:GNG applies. This sculpture has been covered by The Oregonian, which is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest by circulation, at least five times, in addition to other publications. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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:Rebirth (sculpture)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 06:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

GA criteria

Well-written:

The article uses proper prose and grammar, and complies with standard structural and formatting policies. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article adheres to a fair number of reputable publications in its list of sources, and does not leave anything to "OR chance". Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to have a thorough coverage of encyclopedic information on its topic. Nothing fluffy or over-detailed. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article succeeds in covering its topic in an unbiased fashion. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

No evidence in the revision history of editing wars/disputes since at least last September. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Both images are appropriately licensed and serve valid, relevant illustrative purposes. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Thanks for offering to review this article. I look forward to addressing any concerns. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC) As far as GAs go, this one has all the makings of a winner. Congratulations! Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking time to review this article. Much appreciated! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 14 January 2016 (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.