Talk:Kwakiutl (statue)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bobnorwal (talk · contribs) 17:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well written?
Yes, the article is well written, with clear and understandable prose. Here are my suggestions for improvements:
 * According to MOS:TITLE, titles of works of visual arts like statues should be in italics.
 * Fixed. I can't believe I remembered, but not to italicize things.  --  Zanimum (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Words like "totem" and "Aboriginal Canadian" would probably benefit from wikilinks to the appropriate articles.
 * Fixed. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The first few paragraphs of the history section seem a little flippant to me. I'm not a big fan of the quote either - which seems very flippant. A Wikipedia article is not the place for that kind of writing.
 * I can understand your concern, but that's sort of why I included it. The paper the quote is from is considered Canada's newspaper of record, and generally considered very conservative and Conservative, at least by Canadian standards. For them to run this sort of editorial is a bit of a shock. Fair? --  Zanimum (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable?
I can't verify the off-line articles, of course, but from a cursory glance it all seems to check out.
 * I'm a little puzzled by the links that just go to a newspaper index. I don't know standard wiki policy on that.
 * I would be surprised if it is even covered by a policy, it's fairly unusual for newspaper indexes in this age of digitization. Sadly, no Brampton newspapers (let alone ones covering this sculpture) have been digitized. I've changed the refs. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of links are just bare URLs, which should be expanded into full refs like the others.
 * Fixed. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the purpose of the "Further reading" section at the moment. I think it should be expanded, or the two links should be incorporated into the refs or external links section.
 * They're links about the statue, which I didn't use in the article. I suppose there's no great advantage to having a section separate from EL. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage?
This article contains only one section, which only speaks of the history of the statue since it was created. I'd like to see at least one other section that includes the following: I understand that this might be difficult given the sources you have to work with, but I'd at least like to see a better-written description of the statue. If not for the picture of it, I would have a pretty sketchy idea of what it looks like. Even with the picture, I have no idea what the artist was going for.
 * A good description of the statue
 * Some background behind the artist, the concept for the statue, and its creation.
 * I've given background for the artist, examples of how widespread his work was in the public sphere. That said, I really don't think I can provide any more insight on the concept or creation. While I may be able to dig through Chinguacousy Township's unpublished corporate records for commission information, I don't think that there'd be anything on Charlie's end. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit more, look for "The figure depicted by the statue is that of", and everything else in that paragraph after that point. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutral?
Yes, it is mostly neutral - although, as I said above, I think the first few paragraphs of the history section should be rewritten to sound more sober and encyclopedic.

Stable?
Yes, the nominator is the only major contributor.

Illustrated?
The one image illustrating the sculpture seems sufficient for an article of this size. And the picture was taken by the nominator himself, so there are no problems with licensing.

On hold
I'll put this nomination on hold for a week, as is usual. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best of luck, Bobnorwal (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I have to head off to school in a few moments, so I can't go into detail -- but I've looked the article over again a couple of times, and it looks good. I particularly approve of the expansion into a second section. I also understand and accept your rationale for leaving the "flippant" material in. I have made a few minor edits -- mostly adding links and fixing what I perceived as minor errors. I want to take one last look at this article after school -- there are around two things that still bother me about it -- and then that'll be it. Bobnorwal (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thank you! (I have to admit, without your request for more background info, I wasn't aware of his history of public art.) --  Zanimum (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, the two things that still bother me are: Everything else looks fine to me, and these two things are minor enough that I don't feel bad about passing it now. I always love reviewing interesting articles like this. Congratulations. Bobnorwal (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Chinguacousy Township was rapidly growing..." When was this? I assume it was around the middle of the 20th century, but I think adding a rough time period (like "throughout the 1960s", etc.) would help a lot with context.
 * Who is Reeve Robert Williams? Is/was he a writer, someone connected with the town, or just some guy off the street?


 * Thanks for the pass!
 * Okay, I've wikilinked the word Reeve, to the definition. I forgot how obscure the term is, these days. In townships (large rural chunks of counties, that aren't part of towns or cities), Reeves are the top councillor, essentially a mayor.
 * As for Bramalea, I've been specific but not... the start of Bramalea development (late 1950s) was years before move ins (early 1960s), and years before it was a significant force (mid-1960s).
 * Thanks again for all your guidance! --  Zanimum (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)