Wikipedia:Peer review/Guns into Plowshares/archive1

Guns into Plowshares

I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first article I've introduced on Wikipedia, and it would help to hear how more experienced editors would improve on what I've done. I do have a COI on this article—as flagged on the talk page, I'm related to the artists through marriage—so the most important thing is to be sure that the relation hasn't distorted my presentation of the material. But beyond that, I'd like to know whether it feels clear, complete, and properly cited. I'll be grateful to learn even about minute mistakes, since I'm still getting used to the style and standards of the site.

Gratefully, —Brian (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bdhamilton and thanks for writing this article. I had a look at it and spotted a few minor issues but nothing serious.

• The prose is fine and accessible. According to my ears, there should be a "the" before "Mennonite artists" in the first sentence. And I think in the sentence It remained there for over a decade, until... there should be no comma before "until".
• Consider using the spelling "swords to plowshares" instead of "swords to ploughshares" (unless the latter option is much more common) to fit the spelling of "Guns into Plowshares".
• The article is well-sourced and each paragraph is based on several sources. You might consider moving the references found in the lead into the body of the article if the claims are also found there, see WP:CITELEAD.
• According to Earwig, there are no copyvios
• I checked a few of the sources at random to make sure that they support the claims they are used for. Most of them checked out fine. This is the case for: Much of her work, like Guns into Plowshares, attests to the traditional Mennonite commitment to nonviolence.[16] and but its reception by local residents has generally been positive.[7][17] and She was the first graduate of the newly formed studio art program at Eastern Mennonite University in 1972,[2].
• I'm not sure about the following one: The sculpture took three years and cost $125,000 to complete.[1]: I think the source only says that the fundraising took 3 years.
• The "See also" section should be removed since all its links are already found in the article, see MOS:NOTSEEALSO
• If there is more on the relation to the swords to ploughshares movement, that could be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article (but not more in the lead section), maybe with a short explanation of what that movement is and then with how this sculpture relates to it.
• As has already been mentioned on the talk page: images would be great if you can get your hands on some, maybe one of the sculpture as a whole for the lead section and one close-up in the body of the article to make the guns visible.
• I didn't spot any content problems in the article concerning WP:COI.
• The article is short but seems to cover the main points of the topic based on my first look at some of the sources. But I haven't heard of this sculpture before today so I could easily be mistaken.

I hope this is helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, @Phlsph7! Very helpful notes all around. I've made the edits you suggested. There's no concrete connection with a wider swords to plowshares movement, so I don't think anything can be added there. I'm glad it otherwise seems complete. I appreciate the suggestion to get a close-up image of the guns as well as an overall shot of the sculpture; I'll definitely do that. —Brian (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for being responsive to the input. Two more things came to my mind:

1. In the section "Religious context", one has to get all the way to the second paragraph to understand why one had to read the first one. This could be avoided by adding a sentence at the beginning of the first paragraph to make the relation explicit, something like "Many of Esther Augsburger's works of art were influenced by her Mennonite background." The section mentions that this tradition places high value on simple art. If that is somehow reflected in the sculpture, it would be good to mention this.
2. The "Infobox artwork" template has many empty parameters (like "| image_file = ") and pointless comments (like "Only for official web pages" at the url-parameter). They should be removed.

Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looping back to this! Really good point. I've reorganized the 'Religious context' section, and I've cleaned up the infobox, too. —Brian (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)