This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Luther Monument (Washington, D.C.) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Luther Monument (Washington, D.C.) has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 6, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Lutheranism Low‑importance

	Luther Monument (Washington, D.C.) is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.LutheranismWikipedia:WikiProject LutheranismTemplate:WikiProject LutheranismLutheranism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Wikilink format

[edit]

Sorry I somehow accidentally botched the format when I added a wikilink, but that was no reason to remove the link itself. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 March 2020

[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clearly no consensus to move this article. Number 5 7 21:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Monument (Washington, D.C.) → Statue of Martin Luther (Washington, D.C.) – WP:VAMOS has been updated and now says: "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo" "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" is recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better." Evidence the D.C. work is more commonly known as the "Luther Monument"? --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose-This statue is a cast of a statue in Germany that is called the German equivalent of "Luther Monument." As such the US statue has always been known as Luther Monument beginning in the 19th century. Proof is found on ngram viewer. It is not quite the same as any old statue of Martin Luther; there are plenty of those, but most are not known as "Luther Monument." The statue in Germany was erected the same year the seminary (I think in Wittenberg) was shuttered. It was controversial; the statue may have been sort of like a consolation prize. Sad, I know.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as "Monument" is perfectly clear. Red Slash 23:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA Review

[edit]

Passed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Luther Monument (Washington, D.C.)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: APK (talk · contribs) 03:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 08:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and your patience. I'll work on this asap. APK hi :-) (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments

[edit]

I'll be adding comments as I go.

Prose and content

[edit]

Question: He told a reporter from the Lutheran Observer this is the first mention?
- Remark: I reworded it. Let me know what you think. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
make the idea reality weasley
- Done APK hi :-) (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: The idea soon spread amongst Lutheran pastors throughout the area. An association was formed to make the idea reality. On Valentine's Day, 1883, an image of the proposed statue was printed in Lutheran newspapers. Soon, the Luther Place Memorial Church, then named the Memorial Evangelical Lutheran Church of Washington, D.C., suggested the statue be placed in front of its church. Donations soon arrived rw to avoid repeating soon
- Done APK hi :-) (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dedication section, particularly first and second paragraphs seem excessive detail to go into; don't need a play-by-play of an event pre-dedication. is this covered in such detail by secondary sources? If not it's probably undue. 85% is sourced to one primary source.
- Remark: I've always included details on statue dedications in DC if a source is available. Which sentences do you think should be cut? APK hi :-) (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're just trying to avoid giving undue weight to details in a specific part. So it's not about cutting sentences, it's about summarizing. As I note, the fact secondary sources aren't covering this stuff in their summary, and wouldn't in this detail, is telling. That being said, some easy stuff to cut includes " The choir sang two more songs, The Hymn of Praise and Keep Us, Lord, Faithful to Your Word (Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort)" and "People who had gathered at the German Hall on 11th Street NW marched to the ceremony site" -> "People marched from the German Hall to the ceremony site", if you really want to keep those details.

Done APK hi :-) (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section can still be summarized a lot more. At an absolute most, it should be two paragraphs long. If you disagree then please tell me, because I may be wrong about this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning behind the current version of the dedication section is it shows the importance of the statue during that time. It's something I include in all of the DC statues/monuments since it was often a front-page story. I can cut some more if you feel it necessary. APK hi :-) (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around the block longer than me. What do you think of my concern (just re; too much detail) that such extensive text is drawn from a primary source, and the details are not repeated in secondary sources?

I do think it can be trimmed further, for example: "by the choir after another address by a pastor": It doesn't to me speak to the monument's importance to the community that a song at one of the meetings before the unveiling was sung by the choir, or that the song occurred after one of multiple addresses by the pastor.

I know it's going to be easy to acquiesce and just trim, but it's a beautiful section, and if there's an issue with my thinking I want to hear it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed a bit more. What do you think? APK hi :-) (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Nevertheless, the event ended with a prayer" not really even a suggestion but I find the use of nevertheless here funny. They prayed even though people got hurt?
- Done APK hi :-) (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E. RIETSCHEL FACIT. GEGOSSEN LAUCHHAMMER 1884 translate, or leave out the exact wording, just note there's a German transcription. en-wiki.
- Remark: I'm sorry, can you give me an idea what you mean by noting a German transcription? (the layout I mean) APK hi :-) (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of Inscriptions on the monument include:[16]

(rear side of statue, near the pedestal)

E. RIETSCHEL FACIT. GEGOSSEN LAUCHHAMMER 1884

Structure in prose, i.e. On the front of the monument, the words "Martin Luther" are written, and the reverse features an inscription in German.

Done Thank you. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An association was formed is this the committee referred to later?
- Done APK hi :-) (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the North German Lloyd Steamship Company too much detail
- Done APK hi :-) (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add when Martin Luther's birthday is when saying they tried to make it for the 400th anniversary.
- Done APK hi :-) (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

The article and source list are short enough I'm going to make my way through a bit more systematically than a spot check.

1 - 2)

3 - 5) Can't access

7) "Spilling all of the dignitaries into the crowd of 5,000 spectators below." Why do we think there were hundreds of dignitaries on the stage?

Done Reworded for clarity, I hope. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10)

Other things

[edit]

Images: All tagged appropriately, appropriate captions (some redundancy in referring to "the statue" in most captions when it's visibly in the photo.) Y
Referencing all good (no OR, COPYVIO. Earwig down, based off spotcheck) Y

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.