Talk:Alexander Stoddart

Untitled

One of the most notable things about Mr Stoddart is that he does not work within the paradigm of contemporary art.

These articles expoud his views a bit more fully: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3556356/Alexander-Stoddart-talking-statues.html

http://video.strath.ac.uk/streams/external/cap/p120-04/creativity.wvx

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/jun/06/alexander-stoddart-interview

--Ktlynch (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alexander Stoddart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SMasters (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   There are quite a number of minor problems with the prose, mainly to do with punctuation. I suggest you have a third-party cast an eye on it or seek assistance from WP:GOCE/REQ. Although not required for a GA, it would be nice to have compliance with MOS:NUM as well as WP:DASH. John Simpson is a dab, and http://www.adamsmith.org/the-adam-smith-statue/ is a dead link.

The prose is much improved and mistakes have been fixed. The dab and dead link have also been fixed. – SMasters (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   A citation is needed for "Stoddart has also worked on busts of living figures he admires, including Roger Scruton and Tony Benn."

Citation fixed. – SMasters (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All issues have been fixed, and I am now confident that the article complies with the requirements for a GA. As such, I am happy to pass this. I would also like to mention Ktlynch and Mannafredo, who have both worked to improve the article.Well done. – SMasters (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Apart from my first edit, which I bitterly regret (putting the boot into him for perceived snub of Bill MacLaren), I have done little more than fix typos and stuff. It really is largely down to KT and others. Mannafredo (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexander Stoddart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121129020235/http://www.wagnerscotland.net/newsletter12_1.html to http://www.wagnerscotland.net/newsletter12_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070806024532/http://www.msaf.co.uk/news-adamsmith.htm to http://www.msaf.co.uk/news-adamsmith.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed that the article didn't have much post-2019 information. A quick Google search produced souces such as the 2025 backlash on him being commissioned for a Elsie Inglis statue (, ), a statue for Dallas () and Indiana (), and a statue unveiled in 2021 (). I think a thorough search might find more sources of recent works. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Alexander Stoddart

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues remain unaddressed, no ongoing effort to fix them. TompaDompa (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The article doesn't have much post-2019 information. A quick Google search produced souces such as the 2025 backlash on him being commissioned for a Elsie Inglis statue (, ), a statue for Dallas () and Indiana (), and a statue unveiled in 2021 (). I think a thorough search might find more sources of recent works. There's also a "too many quotes" yellow banner from October 2022. Z1720 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking afresh at this article since I created it as a stub 18 years ago, it has come on a long way, to become a very informative article about the subject, his thought and works. The issues for attention at this point seem to fall under two topics: whether it needs extended for recent works, and the extent of appropriate quotations. AllyD (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Taking the works-over-time topic first... The Civic monuments section in the present article does a good job in summarising the subject's Edinburgh and Glasgow statues. (I'd be inclined to lose the brief descriptions of the occupations of their subjects - the hyperlinks are sufficient here).

• The 2021 Edinburgh Reporter article is an appreciation of the 2004 Corstorphine sculpture already mentioned there; it can serve as a reference for that work.
• As to recent works, I'm wary of this becoming an extending list of a working artist's works. The Alberti and Hermes statues don't appear to have attracted coverage outwith the 2019 and 2025 Herald articles, so appending them could be at best too soon.
• The proposed Elsa Inglis statue is covered elsewhere. The controversy seems more around the commissioning trustees than Stoddart himself, and the piece is unrealised, so I would be minded towards omitting it at this point, or perhaps a sentence linking to the discussion in the other article. AllyD (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

On the topic of appropriate levels of quotation, I agree it is currently excessive. The "A painting by Titian ... skinhead in an underpass " block quite is already summarised above, with the same reference, so could be deleted. I also suggest removing the modernism block quote and just linking the Manner of Man interview after "... a more broadly-construed "Modernist" tradition". AllyD (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

That said, the first of these extended quotations was already in the article at the time of the original GA assessment. I am deferring making any changes to the article until further discussion input. AllyD (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• @AllyD: FWIW, I agree with the "too many quotes" banner, but I have a bias against lots of quotes in Wikipedia articles. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Delist. No edits in the article to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.