This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Henry Moore article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Henry Moore is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 1, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This article was promoted to Featured Article status in 2004; it went through Featured Article Review in 2008 and was retained. Unfortunately, the article does not seem to me to still be of the standard we expect of our FAs.
Major concerns are:
This is not a comprehensive list. Over the time I have been keeping an eye on the article, and making gradual changes, I have kept notes of all of the line-by-line stuff that I have spotted – my notes on the article are approaching 10KB now. I have been working on and off on the article since 2016, but I really don't have the interest in fully overhauling it, which, frankly, I think it needs. And the bitty little improvements I am making are not going to bring it up to standard in any useful timeframe. I'm happy to contribute to bringing it back up to scratch, and keep an eye on it once it is there, but I have no enthusiasm for doing the work alone. If there isn't the enthusiasm, it may be better just to bring it back to FAR and have it put out of its misery. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 22:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
References
I got distracted back at the beginning of 2019 and never did anything further about this, but after over 2 years the comments I added above at §Featured article status still seem basically valid. Just re-commenting in case any watchers who are interested in working on the article are active now but weren't around back in December 2019 and missed my comments then... Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 22:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Some details are currently integrated into the chronology. Should there also be a brief separate section, even if this involves some duplication? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Moore's 150th birthday is in July, and I thought it might be a good idea to re-run this artice fr WP:TFA. However, when reviewing this article to prepare for the run (as part of WP:URFA/2020), I noticed several concerns:
@ Ceoil: because they specialise in visual arts FAs and they participated in the article's last FAR. Is anyone interested in making the necessary improvements, or should it go to FAR to try to find editors to improve the article? Z1720 ( talk) 16:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
A couple of the thefts of Moore's work are covered twice, in, the rather oddly-named Controversy section, and in Collections. It needs sorting but I've not got time to do it now. KJP1 ( talk) 14:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Henry Moore article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Henry Moore is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 1, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This article was promoted to Featured Article status in 2004; it went through Featured Article Review in 2008 and was retained. Unfortunately, the article does not seem to me to still be of the standard we expect of our FAs.
Major concerns are:
This is not a comprehensive list. Over the time I have been keeping an eye on the article, and making gradual changes, I have kept notes of all of the line-by-line stuff that I have spotted – my notes on the article are approaching 10KB now. I have been working on and off on the article since 2016, but I really don't have the interest in fully overhauling it, which, frankly, I think it needs. And the bitty little improvements I am making are not going to bring it up to standard in any useful timeframe. I'm happy to contribute to bringing it back up to scratch, and keep an eye on it once it is there, but I have no enthusiasm for doing the work alone. If there isn't the enthusiasm, it may be better just to bring it back to FAR and have it put out of its misery. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 22:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
References
I got distracted back at the beginning of 2019 and never did anything further about this, but after over 2 years the comments I added above at §Featured article status still seem basically valid. Just re-commenting in case any watchers who are interested in working on the article are active now but weren't around back in December 2019 and missed my comments then... Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 22:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Some details are currently integrated into the chronology. Should there also be a brief separate section, even if this involves some duplication? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Moore's 150th birthday is in July, and I thought it might be a good idea to re-run this artice fr WP:TFA. However, when reviewing this article to prepare for the run (as part of WP:URFA/2020), I noticed several concerns:
@ Ceoil: because they specialise in visual arts FAs and they participated in the article's last FAR. Is anyone interested in making the necessary improvements, or should it go to FAR to try to find editors to improve the article? Z1720 ( talk) 16:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
A couple of the thefts of Moore's work are covered twice, in, the rather oddly-named Controversy section, and in Collections. It needs sorting but I've not got time to do it now. KJP1 ( talk) 14:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)