Nelson's Pillar, erected in 1809 to honour the British hero of Trafalgar, was a feature of Dublin for more than 150 years until, suddenly, it wasn't. Before its sudden demise it was both loved and resented by Dubliners, and survived numerous schemes for its removal or replacement with something specifically Irish. A mixture of bureacracy, sentiment – and the sense that there were more urgent priorities – kept the "one-handled adulterer" on his pedestal for far longer than perhaps even he would have expected. Opinion is divided as to whether his eventual replacement in the city centre, the Spire of Dublin, is a worthy successor. After a pretty thorough peer review and some excellent suggestions for improvements, we feel it is ready for FAC. Further comments and criticisms are welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could find very little to complain about at the PR. This looks to be a sound, FA quality article on the subject which meets the critieria. Only thing worth mentioning is that I wouldn't mind seeing a pin map of Dublin in the infobox showing where it was in the city. It would be of limited use I guess given that we can't see the streets when it's small in the infobox. You can click it though to make out features and roughly where the pin marker would be. If you look at the one in Smalls Paradise for instance, I think it helps the reader.♦ Dr. Blofeld23:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. I have no objection to adding the location map, but you will have to tell me how to add the pin, which in this case should go where the "n" of "Dublin" is now placed in the map. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I also had my say at the PR, where my minor points were addressed. This is an excellent overview of a monument that is fading from memory. It fits the FA criteria in my opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: None of the images have alt text, so you should fix that. I have my doubts about File:A half-demolished Nelsons Pillar on OConnell Street, Dublin.jpg which has a PD claim added by an editor not provided or verified by the NLI. Despite being an iconic historical image I think it is actually still in copyright because the NLI's catalogue lists the author as Michael S. Walker. A search of their holding shows he was still active in 1988 and maybe even later, so its copyright status is actually unclear. I've asked the editor who added the PD claim what he based that on. The "no known copyright restrictions" tag states that one should add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined which puts the onus on us and not on the institution. Nice job on the article which I will read and comment on later. ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at this before the nomination. The Library "is not aware of any current copyright restrictions on the photographs, usually because the Library owns the copyright or the term of copyright has expired". Based on the age of the image, one would think the library had purchased the copyright. However, it would perhaps be best to confirm with them. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through this type of situation previously and the NLI usually does not have any additional information, but just don't know of any restriction but cannot verify this image is freely licenced. Some time ago an NLI image of Michael Collins was eventually deleted when we found out the photographer was alive more recently than was thought. That seems to be the case here as the photographer was still alive in 1988. The Library don't often buy the copyright but are given collections. I'll be happy to hear their reply to your request. ww2censor (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to know. I realize that, for this current image, there's no way it can be PD under Irish law unless released as PD by the copyright holder. Even if the photographer died the day after taking this image, it hasn't been seventy years since the image was taken. I'm hoping that the copyright was purchased by the library, but if it wasn't, I'd argue to keep this as fair use, owing to its significance to the subject. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris, I think that one fair-use historical image would be acceptable. I was going to nominate it for deletion on the commons but will wait to see what the NLI reply is. ww2censor (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not heard directly from the library, but independent information leads me to believe that it is highly improbable that the library owns the copyright; the "no known restrictions" tag is, as Ww2 suggests, likely a means of placing the onus on users to determine the copyright status. If the library does come up trumps, then fair enough, but the small likelihood and the time factor lead me to think that a fair use rationale for a copyrighted image is the best way forward. I have therefore reloaded the image on Wikipedia as File:Nelson's Pillar destroyed.jpg, with a fair use rationale, and placed this in the article instead of the Commons version. I would withhold deleting the Commons one for a while, to give the NLI time, but assuming the fair use rationale is accepted, that's no longer an issue for this article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support on determining the status of the image mentioned. Nice job on the prose; Easter Sunday seems like an appropriate day to finally read this highly improved article. ww2censor (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ww2, for your image comments. On the matter of alt text, this is not a FAC requirement. There is a division of view in WP as to its usefulness; based on discussions over the years I am unconvinced, and do not generally add it. If, however, my conom feels differently, I will defer to him. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some previous FACs I've read or been involved in have suggested alt text is used, so that's where I'm coming from. I have not seen any discussion on the topic and I have no idea how many readers could benefit from it. It seems better to be inclusive rather than exclusive. ww2censor (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think alt text should be added to improve accessibility. I'll do this now, though as has been noted this is not a FAC requirement. Everything else raised so far in this FAC looks fine (I've been otherwise occupied over the holiday period, but have been following the nomination). Carcharoth (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SchroCat, basically. And I think the spire or whatever it is that now towers in its place is an abomination, and if whoever it was is game for a double, I'd be deeply grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can arrange. Meanwhile, thank you for your help and support.
Source review - spotchecks not done
Some of the online works are missing italicization - eg. BBC Magazine in Sources, Irish Times in External links
"BBC Magazine" is not a print source, it's a news website. My understanding is that as such, it should not be italicised. The Irish Times in the ext links was an oversight, now corrected.
I'm a little confused by your organization - some of the entries under Newspapers have external links, and some of the entries under Online are newspapers. How are you deciding what goes where? Also, formatting of newspaper names changes between the two, as does short-cite form (citing by article title vs by work title) - why?
Print newspapers and journals are listed in that section, all else is under Online. TheJournal.ie and Independent.ie are not print newspapers, they are news websites like BBC Magazine.
Is there a problem in linking to newspaper articles whenever possible? I have always done this.
"formatting of newspaper names changes between the two" – can you give an example of what you mean?
citing by article title vs by work title: I believe I have fixed these - please indicate any you still find dodgy.
Be consistent in whether your locations include states and if so how those are formatted
Unless I'm missing something, the only U.S. location missing a state is New York, and I don't think we write "New York, NY" (at least, I never have).
Be consistent in whether you provide accessdates for newspapers
If the link goes to a facsimile of the print edition I do not include access dates - the print version is the source. If the newspaper article has been hosted on a website in a different format, then I give the access date. I think this has been done consistently, but I'll check.
Why does Henchy include publisher but Garnett does not?
Fixed
"Anna Livia Moves To The Croppies" - I'm guessing there's a typo somewhere here, as you're currently retrieving the work before it was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. The above comments from Nikkimaria are correct. The sources section is a mess.
2. This sentence contains three errors: in 1842 the writer William Makepeace Thackeray noted Nelson "upon a stone-pillar in the middle of the "exceedingly broad and handsome" Sackville Street: "The Post Office is on his right hand (only it is cut off); and on his left, 'Gresham's' and the 'Imperial Hotel' ".[41]
3.1 Error #1: Nelson stands ...
3.2 Error #2: close the quotation marks about the word pillar.
3.3 Error #3: the phrase "exceedingly broad and handsome" is mentioned on page 23, not 22. The ref should be: Thackeray 1911, pp. 22–23.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
4. There are lots of other errors. I shan't bother to detail them as to do so would mean getting another suspension from a pipsqueak administrator who has zero interest in eradicating Brian's pathetic clique of so-called "reviewers" and is happy to watch as standards continue to plummet.
Note to co-ordinators: @FAC coordinators: In view of past history (see here and here), the above comments look to me like an attempt by this editor to disrupt the process, rather than to carry out a serious review. I have made the punctuation and page range changes he requests, but in view of the repeated personal attacks I don't intend to engage with him further. Personal vendettas or childish name-calling should have no place here. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Johnbod "No specifications were provided, but the current European vogue in commemorative architecture suggested a classical form, typified by Trajan's Column in Rome.[17] Monumental columns, or "pillars of victory", were uncommon in Ireland at the time; the Cumberland Column in Birr, County Offaly, erected in 1747, was a rare exception." - they weren't that common anywhere, and most recent ones were religious, in Catholic central Europe. The list only gives 5 earlier examples in Great Britain, most in the middle of the countryside, like Birr. Dublin was in advance of the fashion in France, Russia etc, not to mention London. Nelson's Column, Montreal, the very near-contemporary one in Montreal might be mentioned; that has attracted comparable controversy in recent years, though at the time it seems the French Quebecers were very anti-Revolutionary & didn't mind. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Had my say at the PR. Living history, and underpinning a very delicate and controversial century. The telling is first rate, and to my Irish mind very fair. Thanks Brianboulton for taking this on. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Another peer reviewer. My handful of minor quibbles were dealt with there, and I agree with Ceoil that this is a first rate article. It was a pleasure to reread it for present purposes, and in my view it meets all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk09:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I had a read through and made a couple of tweaks here and there. Overall, it seems quite well done and I believe it meets the FAC criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
