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 Karanacs 15:14, 31 August 2010 [1].

---

Liberty Bell[edit]

Liberty Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Liberty Bell
• Featured article candidates/Liberty Bell/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... It's a little shorter than the Statue, but so's the article if you'll forgive the crack. Hoped to do this article a while back, but a new book came out on the bell enabling this one to finally get done. It was a fun one to do, and I spent four years at college in Philly so I probably saw the bell every now and then. Hope you like it. There was a nom of this article about two years ago by a drive by, but it was withdrawn when Sandy informed them it wasn't appropriate, if anyone wants I will be happy to pull up the text as it is now deleted.Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.
• Pet Peeve alert - CT, not Ct for Connecticut.
• You use the Liberty Bell Museum website as a ref, so it shouldn't be in the external links.
• Might cull a few more ELs out also, its a bit .. farmy.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments—
• All pictures need Alt text
• Ref #4: Needs a space between the p. and 7
• Ref #5: I don't think it should read www.whitechapelbellfoundry.co.uk. Although it is a website, the work is actually by Whitechapel or better Whitechapel Bell Factory
• Ref #7: The em-dash should be used instead of the en-dash here. (see Template:Cite book
• Ref #11: Two p's instead of one.
• Ref #33: Two p's instead of one.
• Ref #50: Only one p.
• Ref #51: Only one p.

CrowzRSA 00:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Libertybell alone small.jpg - No attribution at the source; where can we verify federal authorship? Source parent explicitly says "For many of the images on GPO's Web sites, GPO has purchased the right to use the image. GPO is licensed to use these images on a non-exclusive and non-transferable basis. All other rights to the image, including those without limitation, copyright, and all other rights, are retained by the owner of the images. These images are not in the public domain."
  • File:Liberty Bell 150th Anniversary 1926 Issue-2c.jpg - Derivative work. What is the copyright status of the stamp?
  • File:IkeBicentBack.jpg - Non-2D work. Who created the photo/scan? Ca85? PyroGamer? An external source? What is its license?
  • File:Chiefbell.jpg - I'm not comfortable with the publication "rationale". I probably won't oppose over this issue alone, but more substantial support really ought to be used. 1) No date is given (bell traveled in 1915; this is not a statement of when the complied album was created and distributed); 2) No information on customers or scope of the albums (if albums were compiled for, say organizers of trip, organizers of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, etc. -- as opposed to being for the general public -- it would be considered a limited publication, which is the same as no publication). Эlcobbola _talk 21:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the last, did you look at the source page? It said the albums were for sale. I will try to find out more about the date though. Regarding the coin, I think we need to settle here, does a scan of a US coin, which is of course PD in most cases, create a new copyright? I would like some resolution here because my next FAC contains several coin images (Shield nickel, if you are interested). That is actually why I chose this article to put up next. I will deal with the other issues later. I agree with you on the GPO. I will look for the best PD image I can find ... I could stop in Philly tomorrow and take my own, but the Liberty Bell is a mob scene in the summer. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it. It says " to create, for profit, photo albums"; that merely means he was paid to create them. It doesn't address the scope of the assignment. Publication must be distribution to the public, not a "closed" group. We're allowed to take images of 2D works without regard to the creator of the scan or photograph because of Bridgeman v. Corel - a case which does not apply to 3D works (3D works have shadows, angles, textures, etc. not present in 2D works that are sufficient to pass the threshold of originality and thus to provide copyright protection to the creator of derivatives). Releases are indeed required from coin photographers (see File:Pdc 24586.jpg, File:Mithradatesi.jpg, etc.) See also the derivative work case book for some general concepts (e.g. frames are 3D and, thus, cannot be included in uploads of 2D works if not PD themselves). Shield nickel is full of copyvios. Эlcobbola _talk 21:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I may have one of those coins laying around - I can get a scan and release it, but it may be awhile once I can. Connormah 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues resolved. Эlcobbola _talk 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You may be interested to know that I went to the Library/Archive at Independence National Historic Park today and spoke with the archivist and with the curator. The curator knew the most about this book, apparently INHP has two copies but the archivist couldn't lay her hands on a copy for me to look at. The curator told me that these were never sold to the public, but were given to officials such as the Mayor of Philadelphia, and at one time there were a fair number of copies floating around. He also was much struck by the photo in question (and two more showing the same individual) and went to Montana to see what he could find out about Chief Little Bear (this was in the 80s). He found no record of Chief Little Bear with the Blackfeet, no one who recognized the guy, and the prevailing opinion when they looked at the photo is that the guy pictured was not Blackfeet, but Sioux. So not only is it clearly not free use, but there are serious issues with that photograph and probably an interesting story lost in the mists of time. Anyhoo, I did take several pictures of pictures from their archives and will upload them and leave you a note when they are ready. They are all ironclad PD, rest assured. Stay tuned.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Comments - nice article, just a few little things to take care of and it'll have my full support. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Liberty Bell, Independence Hall.jpg is missing a description
• Check licensing for stamp image - pd-self is likely not the correct tag
• Second paragraph seems contradictory - it cracked when first rung in Philadelphia, or it cracked in at some unknown time (potentially 1835)? I think you're referring to two separate cracks, but this should be made clearer
• "The bell has been widely featured...in commerce" - you're referring to commercial usages? Is there a clearer way to phrase this?
• I realize I'm probably the only person to care about this, but...does the circumference figure take into account the crack?

Just as a note (I will address all concerns later), because it does not affect the circumference. The crack did not expand the width of the bell. Yes, the crack is wide near the base, but that is because metal was filed away in an attempt to "repair" the bell.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, that's interesting. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is [sic] used for "Pensylvania" but not "Phila"?

One is a variant spelling (it is not an error; you use sic for unexpected, variant spellings), while Phila is an abbreviation.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see...struck comment. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "would be used to good account" - what does this mean?
• Abolitionism is linked twice in the last paragraph of "Early history" due to a redirect
• "Instead, a 13,000 pounds (5,900 kg) replica (1,000 pounds for each of the original states) of the Liberty Bell was cast" - somewhat awkwardly phrased. Also, "13,000 pounds replica" sounds wrong to my ear - perhaps "13,000-pound replica"?
• "The metal used included four melted-down cannons, one used by each side in the American Revolutionary War, and one used by each side in the Civil War" - replace first comma with colon?
• "Large crowds mobbed the bell at each stop, which had been restored to its yoke" - phrasing suggests that it is the stop and not the bell restored to its yoke
• "In Biloxi, Mississippi, the former President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis came to the bell, and delivered a speech paying homage to it, and urging national unity" - commas could be moved around to improve clarity and flow

• Better, but repeats "to the bell"

• Be careful in using "more" - how do you know that no one who saw the bell on its journey west neither saw/kissed it at the fair nor saw it on its return journey?
• "The foundry played along" - how can we be sure of the foundry's motivations here?
• "Archaeologists discovered evidence that the construction site included an area that was once the site of a structure used by George Washington, while living in Philadelphia as president, to house his slaves" - awkward phrasing, and repetitive use of "site"

• Better, but could we switch the last two fragments around - "house his slaves" before "in Philadelphia"?

• "The Justice Bell toured extensively to publicize the cause, and after the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, granting women the vote, was brought" - awkward phrasing
• Liberty Bell March is in article text and should not be in See also
• Be consistent in using hyphens vs dashes in retrieval dates
• Combine identical refs - I see 21 and 22, but there may be others
• Be consistent in whether shortened refs end with a period or not
• Be consistent in whether weblinks to print sources include retrieval dates or not
• Ref 6472: need publisher location
• Shouldn't link to official site in both infobox and External links

I am too tired to deal with Nikkimaria's concerns and the concerns of Elcobbola which I have not already addressed tonight, I will work on them late tomorrow. Thank you both for your comments, and you, Elcobbola for continuing me on this course of education on image policy.

I have addressed Elcobbola's image concerns, and withdrawn the 1915 image while seeking the information required.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support

Nicely done work by Wehwalt, two comments though

• "but returned to Philadelphia somewhat the worse for wear" - can you reword it, I can't understand what it's meant.
• Philosophical Hall is a red link can you create an article for it.

Thanks Secret ^account 17:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those. I have, with mild regret, changed "worse for wear". The regret is because I thought it was a good shorthand way of expressing minor damage, but the FAC reviewers are the preview audience for this article and I respect that. I will work up a quick article on Philosophical Hall and pick up a DYK while I am at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical Hall is now a blue link. I've also nommed it for DYK.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning to Support: Splendidly detailed, with a few mainly minor concerns which need addressing or clarifying:-

• I have two problems with the first paragraph:
  • First, there is an interesting transitive v.intransitive question. Bells do not ring themselves, so I think that "it is believed to have rung to mark the public reading..." should read "it is believed to have been rung to mark the public reading...".
  • Secondly, ignoring the grammatical purity, since this belief is based on fiction not fact, the statement must be qualified: "it is erroneously believed..." etc

No, we just don't know for sure if it did. I've expanded these points in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you say in the lead that "the tale is entirely fictional." That's not "not knowing for sure". If the tale is fictional the belief is erroneous. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing two things: The tale of the bell ringing on July 4, 1776, which is fictional because no public announcement was made of the Declaration, and we know it comes from Lessing's 1847 short story. The story of the bell ringing on July 8, 1776 is merely uncertain, because no one knows for sure. We know that Colonel John Nixon read the Declaration to the people on July 8 (it had been printed in the papers on July 6, but newspapers were expensive and illiteracy was widespread). We know that there was a ringing of bells, John Adams mentions it in a letter, and Christopher Marshall mentions it in his diary. No record was kept as to whether the Liberty Bell was rung, and there is a school of thought that the decay of the State House steeple was such that it could not have been rung. I've recast the lede slightly which I hope will make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, put it down to jetlag. Sorry, I did indeed confuse the two dates; resolved now Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The format "£150 13s 8d" surely needs some explanation, perhaps by way of a footnote?

  Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Four years later, he returned in his coffin after his assassination..." The tone here is literary rather than encyclopedic; it should be modified.
• Unnecessary repetition of "the bell": "Each time, the bell traveled by rail, making a large number of stops along the way so that local people could view the bell." In fact, I count the word "bell" fourteen times in this paragraph, so maybe some further rewording is in order? Perhaps check for further over-belling.
• Italicising the word "kissed" for emphasis is surely POV?
• I have deleted an uncited bit of trivia which someone added to the end of the "Replicas and popular culture" section.
• Inscription. When you begin a statement "The bell has the following inscription", what follows should be the inscription itself, not a full stop and an intervening sentence. I suggest you open: "The bell's inscription is given below."

Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think. The problem is the lack of things I can call the subject of this article. Once I get past 1835, I can call it the "bell" or the "Liberty Bell", can't think of any synonyms.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the difficulty and I think you've done what you can - there's a limit on how much use you can make use of pronouns. I'm sorry that this review has been a bit bleary-eyed, but that's travel for you. All issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks and hope the jet lag clears. Well, three to nil, and I'm not aware of anything left undone.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.