Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sculptures of the National Statuary Hall Collection/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC).

Sculptures of the National Statuary Hall Collection

 * Nominator(s): ~  HAL  333  16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I had been working on this list for several months before the events of January 6. Fortunately none of the statues were seriously damaged. I hope this serves as an effective catalogue of the National Statuary Hall Collection. ~ HAL  333  16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Since the table is sortable, duplicate wikilinks should probably be used in the Medium and Location columns.
 * Fixed. ~ HAL  333  23:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * While the statues of Douglass and Parks are both significant, their relevant sources (here and here) both clearly state that they are not part of the National Statuary Hall Collection.
 * Removed. ~ HAL  333  23:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Should the sculptor Felix de Weldon sort by "Weldon" or "de Weldon"? I'm genuinely asking; I'm not sure how last names like this work.
 * I had to look it up myself. Apparently, a name like that sorts with "de" only if what follows is a single syllable. How specific. ~ HAL  333  23:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Other than that, it looks really good; I found the statues fascinating when I visited the Capitol and am happy to see this as an FLC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – I removed the key (no need for it anymore if every statue is from a state), but everything else looks good to go. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: I can think of a couple minor improvements, but I think this list serves Wikipedia's readers well and should be promoted to FL status. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Ham II

 * Support! Ham II (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis
Update: I beg redemption! I was sick for this whole semi-hiatus, so I was only able to edit mobile, and for some reason the app Wikipedia doesn't want me to go to project/talk pages. Anyway, I think the whole list is good for now, so I'm supporting.  Gerald WL  07:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the impasse; I've resumed reviewing this nomination. Ham II (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The tables seem to have 2 rowscopes per row; only the "primary" column should be marked with `scope="row"`. -- Pres N  14:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  23:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts
 * Why are the states yellow?
 * I was trying to make flags with white backgrounds more visible. Doesn't quite work, but I'm trying to fix it. ~ HAL  333  13:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Why are the other cells the darker gray that is reserved for headers?
 * Isn't it just a normal column with scope? ~ HAL  333  13:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "Statue of John E. Kenna" is in yellow
 * Oops. Looks like Reywas92 already got to it. ~ HAL  333  13:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The reliance on the Architect of the Capitol's website is unfortunate when these statues have been covered in secondary sources
 * I don't consider the Architect of the Capitol a primary source. They didn't commission or sculpt the statues - they just house them. Similar to using the Louvre or MOMA as a source for works in their collection. But I might be wrong. ~ HAL  333  13:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The formatting and reliably of the sourcing passes
 * Support -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments
 * "except for Virginia which" could link.
 * "statues..." non-breaking space before the ellipsis per MOS:ELLIPSIS.
 * ...commemoration." provide the source for this quote directly after the quote.
 * "2000, Congress amended a law to allow states to replace their" when did Congress allow for two statues per state?
 * Added back the full quote for clarity. ~ HAL  333  02:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Date placed" etc is more like "Year placed".
 * I'm not sure the flags are anything other than decorative here.
 * Felix de Weldon small d.
 * "House corridor, 2nd Floor" what is this and why is "Floor" capitalised?
 * Jean-Antoine Houdon hyphenated first name.
 * Was able to address your concerns. Sorry for the tardiness. ~ HAL  333  17:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Reywas92 Sorry to comment after this has been up for so long already but here are my thoughts:
 * I know there's the separate main article for further prose details, but the lead is a little short. More specifically, I don't like that one of the three paragraphs is just about the Confederate statues, but the other subjects aren't mentioned at all, so this should have additional summarization of National Statuary Hall Collection.
 * Expanded the lede. ~ HAL  333  16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It could also count how many are bronze or marble and in each location and summarize the sculptors who have made multiple statues. I'm surprised the main article doesn't mention that at all either; like, Niehaus needs a shout-out for making eight of them including removals.
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This may be more work than you want to do, but I think it would be nice to have another column that gives in a sentence/sentence fragment why each subject is notable/why the state chose them.
 * I thought about doing that. Yeah, it would be a bit of work, but it would also dissuade the reader from clicking on these individual biographies and interacting with those articles - the real purpose of any list. ~ HAL  333  16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think that's a very poor reason not to include descriptions. When you have a hundred names, the vast majority of which unfamiliar even to someone well versed in American history, a snippet will make people more likely to click on someone who sounds interesting out of such a large list. Now perhaps the detail in my current nom National Trails System is enough to satisfy a reader enough not to click through, but with just a hundred personal names, how I am supposed to know what biographies I might want to interact with? For those of my home state of Indiana, something as simple as "Governor during the Civil War" and "Civil War general who wrote Ben-Hur" would be enough to pique my interet. Reywas92Talk 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not like having the descriptions column. I hope this list can still be promoted even though there's a bit of disagreement on this one thing. This is something we can easily sort out on the article's talk page and should not impact FL status. Let's get this list promoted already! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the reader is quite capable of determining what piques their interest and clicking on the article to learn more. A list does not need to have a summary of each entry. Imagine if we tried to summarize each film in a filmography or give an anatomical overview of each species in a list. Furthermore, much of the descriptions will be largely irrelevant as they are not the reasons the state selected them. Sure James Paul Clarke was a governor and senator, but that doesn't make him unique and doesn't even explain why Arkansas selected him. This is simply beyond the scope of this list. ~ HAL  333  21:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, questions like these are above my pay grade, but this happens to be a question I had to research for my own nominations, and I couldn't find evidence that a list like this one needs an extra column with biographical information. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Since the default sort is by state, you should merge the two state cells that are on top of each other in the first column (rowspan=2).
 * I also don't think the first column needs to be yellow. Not a deal-breaker, but I usually prefer the default colors unless there's an explanatory reason.
 * "Statue" in Note 1 should be capitalized to match what it's quoting
 * Bronze and marble could be linked in the lead rather than in every row 100 times.
 * The title of the ref for Helen Keller doesn't match the rest
 * The main table uses "Year placed" but the Former uses "Date placed"
 * Thomas Starr King has its precise location but none of the rest do, would be nice to have them all.
 * I decided to remove it. The sourcing is very scarce on the exact location of many of the statues, and it seemed weird to have the exact location of only a few... ~ HAL  333  16:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This version before you started editing this has all of them, and looking through the sources and their respective articles, there are decent enough sources for every one of them, so I don't quite follow. Reywas92Talk 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't DC's Douglass statue be included?
 * That one's not technically part of the National Statuary Hall Collection. ~ HAL  333  17:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If Douglass isn't part of the collection I'm not sure why you mentioned him in the lead now. Reywas92Talk 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Reywas92Talk 04:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll answer that last point: The statue was originally included in the list, but since the Architect of the Capitol's website clearly states the statue is not part of the collection, I said it should be removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, but hopefully I have addressed all of your concerns. ~ HAL  333  16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Formatting
 * Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs should probably be the publisher for ref 111
 * fine otherwise


 * Reliability
 * no issues


 * Verifiability
 * seems fine throughout.
 * Not much to say, thorough sourcing all around. Pass for source review, the top comment isn't pertinent enough to prevent this. . Aza24 (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the review, Aza. ~ HAL  333  15:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.