Talk:Henry Moore

message: This article was promoted to Featured Article status in 2004; it went through Featured Article Review in 2008 and was retained.  Unfortunately, the article does not seem to me to still be of the standard we expect of our FAs.
Major concerns are:
* 1b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
** Drawings other than the few dozen war drawings are totally unmentioned.  Moore's early drawing (e.g. life drawing, abstract drawings) and late works (drawings of his own hands, the Sheep Sketchbook) unmentioned.
** Graphic works – of which Moore produced 700+ – not mentioned.  
** Moore's return to carving after the UNESCO commission unmentioned
* 1c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate
** Several citation needed templates and other uncited claims
** Claims unsupported by the source given (e.g. article claims that Moore attended "infant and elementary school" in Castleford before going to grammar school there, but the source discusses only two schools: an elementary and a grammar school)
* 2a) lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
** Things are introduced in lead which are not subsequently dicussed in the body, primarily "Many interpreters liken the undulating form of his reclining figures to the landscape and hills of his Yorkshire birthplace." (which is, again, something which definitely requires citing under criterion 1c)
* 2b) appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings
** I don't understand why "recognition" is a section separate from "legacy"; or why "art market" is a top-level section at all
** discussion of the 2004 theft is spread across two sections – again for no clear reason
** some things appear to be in the wrong section – e.g. why is the discussion of the controversy over the proposed Tate gift discussed under "recognition" rather than "controversy" or even "collections"?
* 2c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (Smith 2007, p. 1) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
** Clearly not
* 3) Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
** Many images of Moore's works which do not have any explanation as to why the copyright in the artwork does not apply, e.g. :File:Moore Reclining Woman Ottawa 2015.JPG
** A few which are apparently incorrectly tagged as being covered by Freedom of Panorama (e.g. :File:HenryMoore RecliningFigure 1951.jpg – the artwork illustrated is described as being "on loan", and indeed is no longer sited outside the Fitzwilliam Museum, and yet the FoP tag says that it is for works "permanently located in a public place".
This is not a comprehensive list.  Over the time I have been keeping an eye on the article, and making gradual changes, I have kept notes of all of the line-by-line stuff that I have spotted – my notes on the article are approaching 10KB now.  I have been working on and off on the article since 2016, but I really don't have the interest in fully overhauling it, which, frankly, I think it needs.  And the bitty little improvements I am making are not going to bring it up to standard in any useful timeframe.  I'm happy to contribute to bringing it back up to scratch, and keep an eye on it once it is there, but I have no enthusiasm for doing the work alone.  If there isn't the enthusiasm, it may be better just to bring it back to FAR and have it put out of its misery. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article status 

message: I got distracted back at the beginning of 2019 and never did anything further about this, but after over 2 years the comments I added above at §Featured article status still seem basically valid. Just re-commenting in case any watchers who are interested in working on the article are active now but weren't around back in December 2019 and missed my comments then... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] 

message: Some details are currently integrated into the chronology. Should there also be a brief separate section, even if this involves some duplication? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am certain the Wikipedia article on Henry Moore incorrectly states his father was Irish. In fact his father was born in Owston Ferry, Lincolnshire, England. His father was Raymond Spencer born out of wedlock to Ann Spencer, who later married Thomas Moore. There is no indication of an Irish connection in the 19th Century. Where should I present the details of my research? Neviboy (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The source cited in fact says that Raymond Spencer Moore's great-grandfather was Irish, as does Berthoud's biography of Moore; I have therefore corrected the article to say that he was of Irish descent Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life and death 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Moore's 150th birthday is in July, and I thought it might be a good idea to re-run this artice fr WP:TFA. However, when reviewing this article to prepare for the run (as part of WP:URFA/2020), I noticed several concerns:
*There's a lot of sources in the "Further reading" section. Are these able to be incorporated into the article?
*There are a lot of news sources used for inline citations, but not as many academic sources. I did a quick search of WP:LIBRARY and lots of potential academic sources, and I wonder if others could be found. I am unfamiliar with writing about visual artists so would anyone be interested in making the improvements?
*After additional sources are incorporated, I would suggest that the formatting of the references be looked at to ensure that it is standardised. For example, the ref to "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" (currently ref 3) can be formatted more effectively. 
 because they specialise in visual arts FAs and they participated in the article's last FAR. Is anyone interested in making the necessary improvements, or should it go to FAR to try to find editors to improve the article? Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  150th birthday and [[WP:URFA/2020]] 

message: A couple of the thefts of Moore's work are covered twice, in, the rather oddly-named Controversy section, and in Collections. It needs sorting but I've not got time to do it now. KJP1 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication