Talk:Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch

Sources

• https://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&uri=full=3100001~!20676~!0#focus
• https://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&uri=full=3100001~!20677~!0#focus
• https://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&uri=full=3100001~!5822~!0#focus
• https://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&uri=full=3100001~!7113~!0#focus

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 02:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch

• ... that New York City's Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch once had a puppet library? Source: Weissenstein, Michael (June 11, 2005). "Visitors having enormous fun at N.Y. Puppet Library". The Journal News. The Associated Press. p. 30.
  • ALT1: ... that New York City's Municipal Art Commission thought the Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch faced the wrong way? Source: "Art Commission Thinks These Are Not Well Placed". Times Union. December 17, 1910. p. 15.
  • ALT2: ... that a sculpture of a wounded soldier on the Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch was modeled after its designer's former mentor? Source: Liff, Bob (December 27, 1999). "Arch bridges centuries". New York Daily News. p. 437
  • ALT3: ... that at one point, a statue on the Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch reportedly dangled from a screw? Source: Iverem, Esther (April 30, 1991). "Arch at Grand Army Plaza Hosts 'Homes' Exhibit". Newsday. p. 63
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/William P. Dole

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 661 past nominations.

Epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC).

Substantial article on its way to higher quality, on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. All hooks work, I like ALT1 best, but am told regularly that I have now idea what our readers find interesting. The image is licensed and impressive. Just waiting for qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @Gerda Arendt and sorry for the delay. I have now done a QPQ. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I hope Gerda does not mind, I prefer ALT0. Bruxton (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I have unpromoted, as we have a SOHA request for 26 July's image hook, and it is common practice to not fill the last slot's image or quirky hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Source concern

Most of the sources are excellent. However, one source that is heavily relied upon is a tourist guidebook by illustrator Richard Berenson and journalist Neil deMause. The extent of editorial oversight is unclear (the title page says it is produced for the printer by Berenson's publishing company), and deMause (the writer)'s credentials as an architectural historian are undefined. Given the reliance upon this book (which, in reading the passages cited, appears to be appropriate as a source), some qualification might be in order in the text and some justification for the validity of this source given how strongly it is relied upon. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Thanks for pointing this out; I appreciate it. Since the /GA1 for this page hasn't been created yet, it shouldn't be marked as "on hold" until the review page is created. I've moved your comment to a new talk page section so I can respond to your concern.

I didn't realize it, but now that you mention it, the book is basically all but self-published. Luckily, most of the article doesn't rely on that source, so I'll try to find replacements for it in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius. Thanks. This is my first time doing a GA review so I want to be sure it's done correctly. If I skipped a step please let me know. I basically think this passes with the one issue of this source. Keep me posted as my review is ready to go once the source is addressed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll try to replace most of the remaining uses of that source by Monday, though there is still one quote for which I think the source may still be helpful. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971, thanks for opening the review (I'm responding on the talk page directly to keep the conversation about the source on one page). I've replaced almost all uses of that source now, except for one usage where a direct quote from that book is being cited. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 22:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dclemens1971 (talk · contribs) 07:03, 29 September 2024 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well-written and clear. Incorporates quotations from sources fluidly.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The sourcing is strong. Use of primary sources is minimal. One likely self-published (a tourist guidebook by Berenson and deMause) is appropriately cited only for the opinion of the authors.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is comprehensive. Each section is thorough but not so long the page is unwieldy, and at no point did I feel bogged down in detail. The excellent structuring of the page makes navigation to different sections intuitive.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Not a lot of heated opinions to address here, but the section on the reception on the arch and its sculptures is even-handed and represents a variety of views.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Well-illustrated with images from a range of perspectives and multiple points in history.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.