Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Rushmore

Mount Rushmore
Peer Review

(self-nomination) Mount Rushmore is one of the US's most famous memorials. I have been working on this article lately during the US collaboration of the week, and following the peer review, feel that it is ready for FACing. Thanks in advance for all comments. AndyZ t 15:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nominator's comment I will be out until next Thursday, and may not be able to fix new comments/objections immediately. Thanks, AndyZ t 12:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment

There's very little about the site as a tourist destination. Surely that merits an entire section of its own? It must contribute significantly to the local economy. — Cuivi é  nen , Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 16:22 (UTC)
 * Good point, considering that the idea of Mount Rushmore was first conceived to attract greater tourism to South Dakota. I'll work on building a Tourism section. AndyZ t 16:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I created a draft here, how does it look? AndyZ t 17:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good. — Cuivi é  nen , Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 18:27 (UTC)

=Nichalp  «Talk»=  17:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments --
 * 1) 1745 m in altitude? Could this be made clearer? Is the height of the faces 1,700 m or is the location at this elevation?
 * 2)  It is managed by the National Park Service. -- Could you expand this sentence to describe what the NPS is about without one needing to click the link?
 * 3) *Actually, I suggested the exact opposite during the peer review. The article is about Mount Rushmore, NOT the NPS. Circeus 02:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) **The current draft is what I was looking for. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) ...the Needles... -- this sentence should be expanded
 * 6) * A stub would be a good idea. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Who is Susan B. Anthony?  Please add like you've done for Engineer Julian Spotts
 * 8) Originally, it was planned that the sculpture would go from head to waist -- anticlimax.
 * 9) William Andrew Burkett? Please add designation -- Fixed
 * 10) Alfred Kärcher GmbH? Is this the name?
 * 11) 200 degrees Fahrenheit;  18 inches  -- metric units needed
 * 12) =Appearances= needs to be prosified.
 * 13) The article needs a light copyedit. Too many abrupt sentences
 * 14) * This might be a tad bit difficult for me to do because I wrote it... Could you point out a couple of examples to set me on the right track? Thanks AndyZ t 20:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) What is meant by memorializes the birth, growth, preservation, and development of the United States of America?  Is there also a museum of some sort there?
 * 16) * Does the new wording work? Thanks AndyZ t 20:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

AndyZ t 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Changed to height
 * 2) Done.
 * 3) I tried fixing it.
 * 4) Done.
 * 5) Okay, I'll remove it.
 * 6) He was in college at the time, and didn't have a designation.
 * 7) GmbH refers to a non-profit company. I'll remove the Alfred.
 * 8) Will do.
 * 9) Will do.
 * 10) Will do.
 * 11) Will change wording.


 * I've made some minor changes. Support now. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Comment. This is just a thought -- do you think you should perhaps include more about the actual sculpting process?  I know a lot of people (myself included) have the same reaction to Rushmore as we do to the pyramids -- "I wonder how in the crap they did that?"  I know it was done with dynamite and such, but maybe you could address how.  For example, did they insert a certain amount of dynamite at such-and-such areas and then carve out using certain tools?  How was the finely drawn work done around the eyes and hair?  Did they have to wear safety harnesses to work?  Could they only sculpt in certain light or under certain conditions?  Were there any delays or funding shortages?  Also, maybe you could address the blueprints or sketches for Rushmore -- was Doane Robinson responsible for those?  How many drafts were done before the finalized design was agreed on?  It's a great article besides these questions I'm left with, and these are just some ideas that popped into my head.  If these questions can't be answered due to simple lack of available info, or if you do manage to get some information put in, I'll change this to a support.  Nice work, Andy, and thanks!  All fixed and looks great. Air.dance 09:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Rlevse 16:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Excellent updates, very nice articleRlevse 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Minor object: fix these and I'll support (great start):
 * #*"memorializes the birth, growth, preservation, and development" pls clarify
 * #*"Ending in 1998, ten years of redevelopment work culminated with the completion of extensive new visitor facilities and sidewalks" suggest dropping "ending" and putting "in 1998" at the end of the sentence.
 * #"Geology dictated Borglum's site selection because of several factors. The rock was composed of smooth, homogeneous, fine-grained granite, which was very resistant, only eroding about 1 inch (2.5 cm) every 10,000 years.[5] With a 5,725 ft (1,745 m) height, Mount Rushmore was the tallest mountain in the surrounding terrain.[2] The mountain has a southeast exposure, so it faced the sun most of the day." sounds choppy, perhaps use a colon and list the factors
 * #"Appearances" section title, perhaps something like "Appearances in popular culture"*
 * Okay, I took care of the last issue (and I will prosify the section too later, as per above). I'll fix the other issues. AndyZ t 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I [well, at least attempted to] fix all of the problems, though my wording for the 1st sentence might be a bit shaky. I also rewrote the geology paragraph. Thanks, AndyZ t


 * Support - Excellent.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, excellent information provided. -- King of Hearts talk 00:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Nice job, Andy. PDXblazers 03:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Object until properly copy-edited. In particular, many words need to be weeded out. Here are just a few examples.


 * "the Needles were too worn out by erosion"
 * "The actual carving started in 1927" (actual?)
 * "the sculpture would go from head to waist" ("go" is a little clumsy here)
 * "the completion of extensive new visitor facilities and sidewalks" (as opposed to the completion of old facilities?)
 * "The washing took place by using pressurized water that was around 200 degrees Fahrenheit (90 degrees Celsius)." (Which five words to remove?)

It's way overlinked—close repetition of links is irritating. Please remove the subsequent links. Tony 08:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I did some copyediting, taking care of all of the above errors and correcting other errors. Thanks to Jayzel for helping to remove the repeated links. AndyZ'' t 01:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Nice article. I removed all the duplicate Wikilinks for you. You should only link a word or phrase once and at the point it is first mentioned. --Jayzel 14:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Support Wow - now you see THIS is what I was talking about in peer review. Well done. Just another star in the night T 11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment and conditional Support...firstly, the statement that the memorial is 5,725 ft high is misleading as this is the height of the mountain above sea level, so that needs to be corrected...add the height of the figures in the lead in as well. I say ditch the coordinates header...this information is already in the infobox template and I think it distratcs from the page. I'm not sure the band link is all that great either...are they that notable? The rest looks decent, I may do some wikilinking yet. Address the areas I mentioned by comment or by fixing in the article and I support.--MONGO 07:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed the 5,725 ft high figure, added the height of the carvings, and removed the coorheader template. I didn't find anything on Disambiguation that states that only notable items should be included on Top links, so I'm keeping the link to the band for now. AndyZ t 20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks...everything looks fine now...good job.--MONGO 23:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)