Talk:Statue of Abraham Lincoln (District of Columbia City Hall)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 14:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

, I will be completing a comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. Thanks and I look forward to this review! -- Caponer (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article. APK  whisper in my ear  20:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I have completed a comprehensive review of your article, and I find that it meets the criteria for inclusion as a Good Article. Before proceeding, however, I do have some suggestions and comments that must be addressed. I've listed these below. Once these have all been attended to, I will comfortable completing this process. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication to this article and to Wikipedia. -- Caponer (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede ✅ APK  whisper in my ear  22:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even though most readers know Lincoln's death was in 1865, I would state 1868 in the lede when referencing the third anniversary of his death.
 * Wiki-link the presiding President of the United States at the time of the first unveiling, Andrew Johnson in this instance. Because so many well-known and notable Generals from the Civil War were in attendance, I suggest adding the rest to the lede. This is quite a significant outpouring for a statue.
 * The lede needs to be representative of the entire article, and some content from the following sections must be added.
 * Provide more detail on the first rededication in the lede.

Design ✅ I used the second reference (thank you for finding it), but the only mention of the statue I see in the first book is on pg. 15 (just a short mention). I don't see any info about the design in these books. Am I missing it? APK whisper in my ear  22:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The design section leads directly into a discussion of the statue, without any discussion of geography or place. I suggest making this section "Design and location" or something to that effect; so that you can establish the place with the design. It is significant to begin mentioning that this statue is placed in square in front of the old District of Columbia City Hall in Judiciary Square. While this is all mentioned in the lede, it needs to be addressed in the article's content, preferably before its physical description. You may even consider flipping History with Design, in order to introduce all the actors, events, and the background that led to the creation of the statue before you describe the statue.
 * The entire first paragraph of this section relies upon one source: Smithsonian American Art Museum. Consider sourcing additional and existing content from the following texts I found during a cursory search. I've formatted the bibliography citations for you:
 * Lincoln's first usage in the Design content should be Abraham Lincoln and linked to his article, as it would be the first usage in the content section of the article, separate from the lede. The same goes for Lot Flannery's name at first mention in the content.
 * Other than the above mentioned comments, the Design section is written well overall, and the content checks out from the Smithsonian source.
 * Lincoln's first usage in the Design content should be Abraham Lincoln and linked to his article, as it would be the first usage in the content section of the article, separate from the lede. The same goes for Lot Flannery's name at first mention in the content.
 * Other than the above mentioned comments, the Design section is written well overall, and the content checks out from the Smithsonian source.

History Background ✅ APK  whisper in my ear  22:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Washington, D.C. should be linked first mention in the content section outside lede.
 * The assassination mention should be linked to Assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

Dedication
 * This section is fine; I have no further comments or questions.

Removal and rededications
 * When mentioning that the pedestal was unsafe, did locals have any valid reasons for not thinking the pedestal was safe? I was just curious if there was any supporting evidence that it was flawed structurally.
 * Similarly, do we know why it ended up at the Bureau of Engraving of all places? And was there any similar pomp and circumstance at the first rededication? There may not be documentation to support these questions, but I thought it was worth an ask.
 * Ensure that internal citations are listed in numerical order.
 * Good questions. Unfortunately, I don't see any info on why it was thought the pedestal was unsafe or why it was at the BEP.  The book doesn't mention a rededication ceremony in 1923 and the Library of Congress archives I would normally use only dates to 1922.  APK  whisper in my ear  22:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * , I've re-reviewed the article and I find that you've incorporated all the aforementioned comments and questions where appropriate. I feel that moving the history section above the design section greatly enhances the article's flow. As for the other reference, it was after a brief cursory search, and yes there were a few brief mentions, but the content it describes is already sourced in your article. Thank you for your expedient response, and for your phenomenal work on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! APK  whisper in my ear  00:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)