Talk:amaptocare

Did You Know

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Edge3 (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in the amaptocare participatory arts project in Ballymun, Dublin, each of over 600 tree sponsors spoke with the artist Jochen Gerz and composed an individual message to be "spoken" by their tree? Source: https://publicart.ie/main/directory/directory/view/amaptocare-1/e6847767fbe38b14ea478aaa27662af3/ (Public Art directory, Arts Council of Ireland) - Ballymun, trees, more than 600 sponsors, artist, personal message enamelled on plaque adjacent to each tree
  • ALT1:... that amaptocare by Jochen Gerz was one of Ireland's largest arts projects, with Dubliners donating more than 630 trees from a choice of 15 species, each with an inscribed message from its sponsor? Source: https://publicart.ie/main/directory/directory/view/amaptocare-1/e6847767fbe38b14ea478aaa27662af3/ (Public Art directory, Arts Council of Ireland) - Ballymun, trees, more than 600 sponsors, artist, personal message adjacent to each tree and Evening Herald (newspaper) "Tree planting rockers get back to roots", 20 August 2004, p. 13, "...the area is set to get its very own tree plantation as part of Ireland's largest arts project, Amaptocare .."
  • ALT2:... that the amaptocare community arts project was proposed by conceptual artist Jochen Gerz after he visited Ballymun in 2002 and found it a "no-fly zone for birds" and more than 630 trees were planted? Source: Magill Magazine, 2005: https://magill.ie/archive/ballymun-no-fly-zone-birds, "Ballymun: a no-fly zone for birds" and https://publicart.ie/main/directory/directory/view/amaptocare-1/e6847767fbe38b14ea478aaa27662af3/ (Public Art directory, Arts Council of Ireland) - Ballymun, trees, more than 630 trees, artist
  • ALT3:... that amaptocare by Jochen Gerz saw Dubliners donating more than 630 trees from a choice of 15 types, each with an inscribed message "what would this tree say for me" from its sponsor? Source: https://publicart.ie/main/directory/directory/view/amaptocare-1/e6847767fbe38b14ea478aaa27662af3/ (Public Art directory, Arts Council of Ireland) - Ballymun, trees, more than 600 sponsors, artist, personal message adjacent to each tree and Evening Herald (newspaper) "Tree planting rockers get back to roots", 20 August 2004, p. 13, "...the area is set to get its very own tree plantation as part of Ireland's largest arts project, Amaptocare .."
  • ALT4:... that when Dubliners donated more than 630 trees for amaptocare in Ballymun, artist Jochen Gerz offered a face-to-face meeting to each, to write their tree's personal permanent inscription?Source: https://publicart.ie/main/directory/directory/view/amaptocare-1/e6847767fbe38b14ea478aaa27662af3/ (Public Art directory, Arts Council of Ireland) - Ballymun, trees, more than 600 sponsors, artist, personal message adjacent to each tree and Evening Herald (newspaper) "Tree planting rockers get back to roots", 20 August 2004, p. 13, "...the area is set to get its very own tree plantation as part of Ireland's largest arts project, Amaptocare .."

• Comment: Will do QPQ (this is my 6th nom) today / tomorrow - 3 done since, let's use John Atcheler for this one.

Created by SeoR (talk). Self-nominated at 06:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

• This is only a comment for now, but while the hooks are quite good (I'm quite partial to ALT1 in particular), is there a way to make them snappier or slightly shorter? In the case of ALT1, it may be a good idea to focus on the "Dubliners donating and inscribing part" rather than it was one of Ireland's largest art projects. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Narutolovehinata5; I offer ALT3 and ALT4, developing that theme with two different focal points ("permanent" in ALT4 adds emphasis, as the sentences by each person are literally stamped in enamelled metal on a plaque alongside, but is not essential). SeoR (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and any of the hooks could be used, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hi there. I was reviewing this for promotion, when I noticed several large quotations in the "Reception and criticism" section. Excessive quotations are not allowed per WP:NFC#Text, and I think the section could be improved anyway by paraphrasing the content. Edge3 (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I am on the case. These two quotes were each tiny percentages of their texts, and I felt they had a nice impact in this format, but they will both be paraphrased or cut and line-quoted within 10 minutes. SeoR (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm promoting this now. Edge3 (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Did You Know front page appearance

Friday 5 March 2021, with a 12 hour appearance, midnight to noon UMT, on the front page, this article was visited 2002 times. 2A00:1370:8117:7670:4D95:5D6:9556:DC (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

GA review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Finnfrog99 (talk · contribs) 13:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC) and SeoR (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: TheVoicelessWriter (talk · contribs) 08:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll be the experienced review to oversight the review process as part of the June 2026 Gan Backlog Drive. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

Criteria analysis

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is clear and concise No grammar and spelling issues I helped improve the readability of some statements.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	No issues with the lead section, layout, and words to watch	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	There is a list of properly cited references.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All cited sources are reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	I did not find any original research during review and source spot check	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Possible copyvio issue resolved.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	All major aspects regarding amaptocare have been covered in the article.	Pass
(b) (focused)	All statements are relevant to the general topic and subtopics.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The topic fairly covers positive and negative perspectives of the subject matter.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
No edit war ongoing	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are free and properly tagged.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	I have relocated all images, except for the one in the infobox, to proper locations based on their content. Edited some captions to improve readability	Pass

Source spot check

• 4. (a) Y (b) Y (c) Y (d) Y (e) Y
• 6. Y
• 8. (a) Y (b) Y
• 14. (a) Y (b) Y (c) Y (d) Y
• 20. (a) Y (b) Y

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Article meets criteria for good articles.

Discussions

• Upon checking the article's authorship, I have found that this nomination qualifies for quick fail. The nominator, @Finnfrog99:, has only authored 0.5% of the article and is ranked 6th in authorship. Per WP:GANI, [The nominator must be] the author of at least 10% of the article, or [is] ranked in the top five in authorship. The nominator must be a significant contributor of this article to nominate this for good article status. The nominator fails in both conditions. Thus, this qualifies for quick fail.
• The article also contains possible copyright violations as the copyvio detector has detected high similarities with two sources; one being 55.1% similar and the other being 49.5% similar. Upon further review of these similarities, the article contains too many quotations that violate WP:QUOTE, mainly quotations that should be paraphrased.
• I will be waiting for an experienced reviewer to confirm this before executing a quick fail. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 8:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • While I agree that the nominator has made only minor contributions to the article, authorship itself is not listed among the five immediate failure criteria, though it is mentioned in the GA instructions. The latter page states that reviewers have the discretion to remove any drive-by nominations they come across. As it does not specifically state that such nominations should be "quick-failed", I would be inclined to perform a full review. However, if you suspect that the article contains copyright violations, that would support your rationale for quick-failing the review.
  • And yes, I agree that there are too many quotations, but the nominator should be given an chance to correct them. If there are still suspected copyright violations in the article after, the review should be quick-failed. Regardless of the outcome of the review, the nominator should be kindly informed not to make such nominations. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • @Alexeyevitch: @TheVoicelessWriter: User talk:SeoR#Re:Amaptocare Finnfrog99 (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    • That's very helpful, Finnfrog99. I firmly object quick-failing, and recommened the reviewer preforms a full review. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
      • As a major contributor to this article, I’m happy to co-nominate or re-nominate, and to help meet GA standards. Please let me know if I need to do anything specific. SeoR (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Added some stuff from WP:TWL sources. Finnfrog99 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Quotations

• • @Finnfrog99: Please paraphrase quotations when deemed necessary per WP:Quote. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, which quotations do you want paraphrased? Finnfrog99 (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Use the copyvio detector. You should be able to identify which quotations to paraphrase using that, like the ones in this statement from the Origins section: He further explained that he saw "the trees as breaking up the public and civic space of Ballymun", which he feared would otherwise be streamlined and anodyne, and that "It's nice to interrupt a little bit the monotony of the computer drawings." TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  As a major contributor to this article, I’m happy to support paraphrasing. I would note that the quotes are a small percentage of the article, and were used for specific issues, in a prose flow. And I did not think any quote exceeded 40 words, the threshold for blockquote usage. But paraphrasing can absolutely work too.

  On the other side, in 15+ years, I’ve always been super-careful re copyright, and can assure that none of the quotes comes anywhere near copyvio levels vs the source documents; quotes are very much allowed without copyvio. SeoR (talk)

  I have now trimmed further quotation from the Magill article source, I think without any major loss of impact, and will move on to address concerns re. one other source, the Dowie. No other source registers material overlap. SeoR (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Dowie source quotation reduced by over 80%, hope this helps. Thanks for the input, SeoR (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for helping with this! Finnfrog99 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I should probably ping the reviewer and tell them the quotes were fixed @TheVoicelessWriter: Finnfrog99 (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Thought I should note that quotes from The 4th Act (fully watchable on youtube for free (32:00-33:30 for the 'rt3-Ireland' upload), but cant link, idk if copyvio) could be used to expand the article Finnfrog99 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Final check

• @Alexeyevitch: I am done reviewing the article. Per the rules, I must wait for you to check the review before proceeding further. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I've reviewed a few articles and this review looks good to me Finnfrog99 (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Article meets criteria. The closing can be actioned now. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:26, 13 June 2026 (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.