Talk:Mount Rushmore/Archive 1

message: I haven't seen any of the movies listed here, but surely the notes here should be short and to the point?  Film trivia (like where the Hitchcock film was shot) should be under the actual film.  The summaries of the Team America and Trail Mix-up were completely incomprehensible if you hadn't seen the movie so I took them out.  Feel free to rewrite. --Tedneeman 07:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering 'Mount Rushmore' is how this monument is commonly known, wouldn't this article be better placed at Mount Rushmore? --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 01:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie Appearances

message: A little-known fact about Mount Rushmore is this: In 1937, a bill was introduced in Congress to add the head of Susan B. Anthony, but a rider on an appropriations bill in Congress was passed to require that funds be used to finish only those heads that had already been started. (Source)
Is this true? If so, why is this missing from this article?
--Klaws 21:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Library of Congress is a reliable source. I added it to the article (with citation). Cmadler 19:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Susan B. Anthony? 

message: My reading of the WP:MOS is that the subsections of Appearances should contain short representative lists of the most notable instances of Mount Rushmore in film, print and games. These sections should not include every instance since the lists would become so long as to have little or no value and would give the impression that such uses are more important than its history or geology. 
There is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedea is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedea is not a mere collections of internal links. 
Consequently, before adding to this section, please take the following steps:
*be sure that the article that you are linking mentions Mount Rushmore. We should not be sending readers that are looking for information about Mount Rushmore to articles that do not mention the term. 
*verify that your entry is famous because it is associated with or significantly contributed to the notability of Mount Rushmore.
*verify that your addition is as notable as the examples already listed and that Mount Rushmore plays a major, not just a tangential role in the work. 
*consider replacing an existing less-notable entry. 
*justify your edit on this page.
Finally, if you disagree with my reading of the manual of style, leave your comments here. Please don't edit the article to make your point. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances section 

message: I'm wondering about whether or not this article should be listed as a GA, considering that:
*Lead is too short
*Only 1 footnote and 2 references?
*Weak, short sections (and paragraphs)
*I'm assuming that there are definitely more appearences than those few listed there?
*Ecology: At least some of the usual animals and plants should be incorporated into the text.
*The short list in the Geology section should be removed and switched w/ prose
Perhaps if the article becomes USCOTW, these issues should be addresses. Personally, I don't believe this article is good enough for Good article status, but I'm open to other opinions about this article. AndyZ 01:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA? 

message: Wasn't Mount Rushmore at first going to be carved larger... down to the waists of the presidents?  If so, that should be covered in the article.
*Good point, I added it into the article. AndyZ 16:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full height? 

message: As in, why did they build it? Does anyone have any insight on the proposal to build it? Was it a make work project during the great depression? When was it first proposed? Why is it in South Dakota instead of somewhere else? I'm hoping that someone who is much more knowledgable on this topic can help answer these questions that I had after reading the article. Thanks! ClarkBHM 16:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: In the TR article it states:
:Roosevelt, together with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, was chosen by President Calvin Coolidge to be depicted in stone at the Mount Rushmore Memorial.
This article makes no mention of that, only that
:Congress authorized the Mount Rushmore National Memorial Commission
It should be clarified how it was decided who would be on Mt. Rushmore.
Zaui (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who decided? 

message: Who made the decision to switch the photos of the page? Willshepherdson 03:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the edit history of the article.  Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please follow the link to Wikipedia:Peer review/Mount Rushmore/archive1 at the top of this page. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the image (by the way, it is peer review). The image you added to the article imo doesn't look as good as the image that you removed, especially since Theodore Roosevelt is completely in shadow. A gallery is being proposed to add more images into the article. AndyZ 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Chances are the gallery will be located at Mount Rushmore/gallery, with the link being provided in the See also section. AndyZ 23:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good alternative, if the images are in commons or can be placed there, is to add a commons tag at the bottom of the article. See Western honeybee for an example. There, the commons tag takes the reader to commons:Apis mellifera gallery page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, under the External links section there already is a link to the Wikimedia commons, though apparently there are only 5 images in that category for Mount Rushmore. Thanks anyhow though. AndyZ 01:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did I miss that? Thank you for your patience. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Drafting out a few facts to add to a tourism section as brought up in WP:FAC:
*The second largest industry of South Dakota (after agriculture) is tourism: Mt. Rushmore receive 2.75 million visitors in 2005.
*A strict ban on abortion implemented in South Dakota led to an angry outcry by abortion supporters who threatened to boycott Mount Rushmore.
*Mount Rushmore is the number 1 tourist attraction
*Lincoln Borglum Museum open everyday besides Christmas (from 8 to 5) features two 125-seat theaters that show a 13 minute movie about Mt. Rushmore.
*The monument is illuminated at dusk for 2 hrs
*Grandview Terrace, above the lincoln museum, is a great viewpoint for mt Rushmore.
*From spring to fall, the Sculptor's studio built by Gutzon Borglum is open, with talks about how the mountain was built along with the tools used.
*Ampitheater, below the sculpture, includes a 30 minute program that discusses the construction of the memorial, ending with the lighting of the sculpture.
*Presidential Trail goes from Grandview Terrace through ponderosa forests to Sculptor's Studio. 
AndyZ t 17:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism facts 

message: Should'nt we mention in this article that the United Sates Mint will issue in 2006 the South Dakota commemorative quarter with which depicts the Mount Rushmore? (see 50 State Quarters for details. CG 13:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Sates Mint 

message: Does anyone know the exact effect that lichens and other types of things that live on the stone have on the monument? Should something be mentioned about why, not just that, lichens are removed by conservators?--ttogreh 07:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lichens? 

message: This article concenring Mount Rushmore is laid out so beautifully with a clear and a critical explanation and also with excellent photos that help to high light it all. I hope this article is one day sighted on the front page for it's excellent information meritswww.geocities.com/berniethomas68 01:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I came here for information, and left with all that I needed, and a clear understanding of the site, history, and with enough media to get the visual appearance as well (atleast as best I could without having visited it personally). How do you nominate an article as a good article, according to Wiki guidelines? Ubergenius 14:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Excellent Article

message: I felt that the last part of the History section meritted it's own subtitle in the article and duely added a "controversy" section. Others may with to move this to elsewhere within the body of the article, but I felt that this paragraph was distinct from the chronology of the "history" section... 69.140.65.251 01:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: In the article, it says Gutzon Borglum was a Ku Klux Klan member, but in Borglum's individual article it says he has "sympathetic connections" that were evaporated by the time he carved Mt. Rushmore.  This might need to be fixed in one article or the other.
:Stone Mountain confirms Klan membership without reference, and Gutzon Borglum does not contradict, but rather says he fell out with the (Stone Mountain) Association. I've added an academic article as reference here.--Carwil 17:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gutzon Borglum's KKK associations/contradiction with other article.