Talk:Misneach

Did you know nomination

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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Misneach
• Gough Monument
• Kill Equestrian Centre

)

Misneach infront of Trinity Comprehensive in Ballymun

• ... that a photo of a girl at a former equestrian facility and a monument blown up by the IRA served as the basis for a statue in Ballymun (pictured)?

• Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/evening-herald/194874727/

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Race Across the World series 6, Template:Did you know nominations/Chaldean National Congress, Template:Did you know nominations/Twenty Twenty Six
  • Comment: it'd be cool if this was ran on the same day as my Ballymun Shopping Centre and Ballymun Concrete News DYK noms. If I need to do more than 1 qpq tell me, the template said only 1 was required

Created by Finnfrog99 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 3. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

Finnfrog99 (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC).

• the template after nominating says I need 2 more so I'll go do 2 more Finnfrog99 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • added qpqs @Launchballer: thanks for agreeing to review! Finnfrog99 (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Ping me when done and I'll review.--Launchballer 20:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

All three QPQs are done, though you ought to return to Chaldean National Congress. Kill Equestrian Centre is long and new enough and Earwig has no complaints. Lots of opportunities for an WP:DYKAPRIL hook, but I'll let you propose that. I'll finish reviewing the other two when I'm not nodding off, but I did just add a {{cn}} to Gough Monument.--Launchballer 03:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

fixed the Finnfrog99 (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The other two are long and new enough and Earwig has no complaints with either of them. Hook checks out. (For the record, I was thinking of DYKAPRIL hooks like "that Ukrainian refugees in Ireland were nearly sent to a kill facility in 2022" or "that a kill facility was used as a venue for the 2003 Special Olympics".) ALT0 is approved.--Launchballer 12:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Launchballer for DYKAPRIL I could do

ALT1 ... that in 2003, the Special Olympics went to kill equestrian?

or

ALT2 ... that in 2003, the Special Olympics went to a kill facility?

and for the other 2,

ALT1 ... that a monument blown up by the IRA served as the basis for a statue in Ballymun (pictured)?

or

The Gough Monument in Chillingham Castle

ALT2 ... that a monument blown up by the IRA (pictured) served as the basis for a statue in Ballymun ?

If you approve these ALTs, I'll leave it up to the promoter to decide

I'd already suggested the Olympics hook, so I couldn't approve it, and capitalising Kill would give the game away (hence DYKAPRIL).--Launchballer 14:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll uncapatalize it then Finnfrog99 (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2026 (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:Misneach/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Finnfrog99 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Per exemplum (talk · contribs) 21:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Happy to take this on! Thanks for the work on the article, which I have found to be very interesting. I'm placing the nomination on hold rather than running through the full criteria table yet, because there are a couple of aspects that I'd love to see addressed first. None of this is far from the standard, and I'd expect it to be closable within the hold window.

The main one is coverage (criterion 3a). The article in its current form doesn't yet convey the central conceptual content of the work. My suggestions:

• The genealogy of the mould. The piece was cast from the mould of the Gough Monument, and that reuse is doing the conceptual work: a destroyed colonial monument repurposed to depict an ordinary local teenager. The article mentions Gough was "controversial" without saying why, what became of the original, or why the reuse matters. I think this is the interpretive engine of the sculpture and it's currently almost absent.
• The art-historical placement. I did a little bit of research and it looks like Art and Architecture of Ireland, Volume V: Twentieth Century, ed. Catherine Marshall and Peter Murray (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy/ Yale University Press, 2014), 375.) situates the work within a debate about the redefinition of the Irish public monument. Byrne's piece as an intervention in the genre, set against figures like Maxton and Cullen. That framing gives the article the secondary-source context it otherwise lacks.
• I'd suggest a short Background section carrying both. To clarify, I realize the scholarly record on this work is thin, and it would be unfair to demand coverage the sources can't support. But some more context would be beneficial.

Happy to talk any of this through. Once the coverage and lede are settled I'll go through the full criteria.

(Note: the GA counter on the nominations page page under-reports my review history; it resets on a username change I had requested a while back, and several of my prior reviews and GAs were signed under my former account. The accurate figures are 6 GAs and 11 reviews.)

Per Exemplum 21:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Further comments (05/29/2026)

@Finnfrog99 Just had a chance to go through your edits. First of all, thank you for all the additional work on this article and for linking additional content. It has come a long way and I think is close to passing. A few things to still settle regarding 3a and 3b per my earlier comments, which are mostly refinements rather than new research:

• Citation edits: the Misneach material from Irish Art 1920-2020: Perspectives on Change is split across two different chapters, and the citation should follow the chapter author in each case. The recast/IRA sentence at footnote 20 is from Catherine Marshall's Ch. 3, "Visualising Irish history: conflicting utopias" (p. 94), so it should be cited to Marshall as chapter author, not to the editors. The analytical material for my second point below (relocation, dissent, genre subversion, p. 195) is from Paula Murphy's Ch. 6, "An expression of matter: sculpture and installation". What makes it confusing is that one of the chapter authors (Marshall) is also one of the volume editors. In both cases Marshall and Scott go in the editor field. One more small thing: the Books entry has Marshall's name inverted ("Catherine, Marshall").
• Murphy inclusion: the chapter by Murphy says more about the work than the article currently draws from it. On p. 195 Murphy reads the piece as subverting "all aspects of the traditional equestrian monument" except the horse and the bronze casting, with the reuse of the Foley/Gough horse serving to "return an element of the sculpture to Ireland" — the inversion of a colonial general into an ordinary local teenager as the conceptual point. A sentence or two on why the reuse signifies would close the main coverage question.
• Reception: On p. 195 Murphy notes the relocation to Trinity Comprehensive was officially blamed on the (unrealized) metro plan, and reads that skeptically, paralleling the 1948 removal of the Queen Victoria monument from Leinster House. She also records local dissent from a Labour councillor who felt the work portrayed an "unfair and subversive image of the people of Ballymun". The reception section is currently all positive, so this would help with balance.
• Gough biography: The Background section now carries a fairly full account of Gough's military career, including the Opium Wars, the Anglo-Sikh campaigns, and so on. That detail belongs to Hugh Gough and the Gough Monument, and for an article about the sculpture I feel that it may risk reading as undue. I'd suggest paring it to what Misneach actually turns on (a colonial military commander, his Phoenix Park monument, its attack and IRA bombing, the mould's survival and reuse) but how far to trim is your call. That said, if you want to push back and leave as is, I will happily respect your decision and won't use this to hold up the pass, but I did want to mention it.

The lede can follow once the body settles. A sentence bringing in the appropriation and its reception would align it with WP:LEAD; it can stay short relative to the article. Let me know your thoughts and whether you agree with these suggestions. Happy to talk any of it through! Per Exemplum 20:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Further comments (05/31/2026)

@Finnfrog99 Ok, I read through the most recent edits. This is looking really good; the sourcing and coverage are where they need to be now, and the Murphy and Marshall material has come in cleanly. I've made a few mechanical copy-edits directly where the fix was unambiguous. Do look those over and revert anything you're not happy with.

The only thing left is the lede. Suggested wordings below; use them if they work for you, or run with your own:

• The lede currently says the statue "is a cast of the Gough Monument in Chillingham Castle in Northumberland." That has the order reversed; the work was cast from a mould of the monument while it was still in Phoenix Park; the original only went to Chillingham later. The body has this right ("structured from a wax mould of the Gough Monument"). Suggested: "The statue was cast from a mould of the Gough Monument, replacing the figure of Hugh Gough with a local teenager." — or however you'd prefer to phrase it.
• The lede would benefit from a sentence reflecting the work's reception, since per WP:LEAD it should summarize the body and the critical response is currently body-only. It can stay brief. Suggested: "The work has been read as subverting the imperial associations of the equestrian monument, though some locals criticised it as portraying an unfair image of Ballymun." Again, feel free to take this verbatim or use your wording; I also kept British English spelling but I am happy with whichever you prefer as long as we keep it consistently across the article.
• Minor and entirely your call: "a local Ballymunner" with the explanatory note reads a little colloquially for the lead; "a local teenager" or similar might sit better, but I'll leave that to you.

Once the lede's settled I'll be happy to pass. Thanks for all your work on this! Per Exemplum 20:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Final review (05/31/2026)

Great, we're done. :-)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Congratulations! It's ben a pleasure reviewing. Per Exemplum 21:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________

Hello! this is a nice surprise, I thought I'd have to wait ages for this to be reviewed lol, so thanks for reviewing this! I was actually the person to write the article on the Gough Monument (around the same time I made this one), so It shouldnt be too hard, only have to do some more research on who gough is

can you quote that work you cited so I can use it in the article? Finnfrog99 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I just realized I already cited it in the article, my mistake lol. i thought I didnt cuz you mentioned Yale University Press and that isnt on The Wikipedia Library Finnfrog99 (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

done the gough monument bit, will do the bit about Gough himself tommorow

I should probably link this; Talk:Gough Monument/GA1 Finnfrog99 (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your quick reply! I will be away until Monday but will do my best to take another look as soon as possible. I look forward to bringing this to GA. :-) Per Exemplum 00:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello again! Im done the background, I wrote the Gough Monument bit from scratch, copying the gough bit from gough's article with trimming of irrelevant details and some fact checking. Does it look ready for review now? Finnfrog99 (talk)

Added images to background Finnfrog99 (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Per exemplum: Finnfrog99 (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Finnfrog99 Hi! Just got back yesterday and catching up on things, but will do my best to reply substantively by end of the week. Thanks for your patience! Per Exemplum 19:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

No rush, just thought I'd ping you incase you forgot Finnfrog99 (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Per exemplum: I've edited the article to reflect your suggestions Finnfrog99 (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Just a quick sidenote, shocked that that queen victoria statue doesnt have an article yet and that I have to link to the person. Definitely gotta make that at some point! Finnfrog99 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

By the way, that note is taken from Draft:Ballymun Flats, a work in progress rewrite of Ballymun Flats Finnfrog99 (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Finnfrog99 Thank you for responding so quickly! If you will allow me a day or so to look through the edits before responding substantively, I'd appreciate it. It's a pleasure working with you on this. :-) 19:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC) Per Exemplum 19:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I've changed the last 2 sentences of the lead to this; The statue was cast from a mould of the Gough Monument, replacing the figure of Hugh Gough, 1st Viscount Gough with a local teenager. The statue has been read as subverting expectations that come with equestrian statues and reclaiming the monument, though some locals have criticised it as portraying a stereotypical image of Ballymun. I think having the full title for Gough is required, don't know why but all the articles I've seen do that. I did add a bit more to your suggestion for the reception bit of the lead, just so we were pulling a bit more from it. With the rewording, the word Ballymunner would feel clunky, so I cut it. Just one other mostly unimportant thing I felt worth mentioning; The statue was blown up in 1957, a few years before the Ballymun flats were built (eventually leading to the regeneration of Ballymun, which this is a part of), so it mustve been from when the monument was in northumberland, but it's not important for the article, just thought I should clarify.

Thanks for all the help with the article, I really appreciate it! Hopefully this is enough to pass. Finnfrog99 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 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.

Peer review

Misneach

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for FAC after this PR. I completed a GA review on the article in May and decided to revisit it for FA. Before that, I'd appreicate comments on the prose and accessibility mainly. I have went to FAC for different articles two times before and both failed, so hopefully this one will be successful

Thanks, Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Not all books are online, if needed I can email an image of the contents Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

CitrusHemlock

Sorry for getting to this so late, it slipped my mind. I'll keep myself to a simple analysis for now, but will come back later for a more in-depth review. Right now the content seems strong, but there are some issues surrounding it. Citrus🍋 21:58, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Responded to existing comments Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Infobox:

• The URL in the infobox seems to have died. I am unsure if including an archive.org link would be appropriate for the infobox – there isn't any documentation and I personally haven't seen it before – but it would definitely be appropriate for an 'External Links' section.
  • I can see it fine, but it may be region locked to Ireland. Removed it from infobox, changed to archive link and moved to external links
    • Probably the case, would be good if some other reviews could check it out.

Citations:

• I would delink the redlink Archiseek, I do not think it will get an article.
  • I have to disagree on this one. I have done some research on it in the past and believe it to be notable. Also its about page demonstrates some notability (just havent gotten around to making it yet)
    • That's fair, it seems to have gotten some newspaper coverage that did not appear on the search I did.
• There are a lot of issues with reference pointers. I have opted not to change them, as I am unsure if the issue is with the reference or citation:
  • Refs 2, 38, 51 do not include an author or point to any citation.
    • Those are supposed to be pointing to "Breaking Ground selected projects 2002-2008" Im going to try and fix it
      • There might be some editors that could be used as the hook (see below). If not, you can use the parameter "ref={{sfnref|Breaking_Ground2001}}" to generate a hook
  • Refs 4, 6 cite "Heathcote", a name not present in the article, references, or citations.
    • My mistake, that was taken from the Viscount Gough article which had it malformed and I did not notice it. Fixed now, and cited it to it's book
  • Ref 32 has a valid author but invalid date.
    • Typo. Fixed
  • Refs 36, 49, 53 have a valid author but invalid date.
    • Fixed
• While you do not have to make this change, I think it would make the citations clearer. Right now you are indicating chapters by having a separate reference for the chapter under the reference for the entire book. This can be avoided by using the |chapter parameter, which would really simplify things.
  • How does this work for references where multiple chapters with different authors are cited?
    • You would have one entry for Chapter A and the overarching work, and another for Chapter B and the overarching work. Its not *ideal*, but I still think it would be clearer that what exists presently
• All authors in "Memories Milestones and New Horizons Reflections on the Regeneration of Ballymun" are listed, rather than just listing the editor. This would also be helped by using the chapter parameter
  • changed to crediting the editor
• Also optional, but using the |url-access parameter would be useful to distinguish between payed links and free links.
  • Added (also added |via= to all)
• The use of publishing location is inconsistent.
  • They arent useful for anything here, so cut them.
• ISBN format is inconsistent.
  • AntiCompositeNumber showed me a tool to make them consistent and I ran it on the article. Does it look good now?
    • Looks good
• The book titled "Breaking Ground selected projects 2002-2008" links to and has an ISBN matching a book instead titled "Breaking Ground: 2001-2009" if you are referring to a chapter in the book, you should use the chapter field.
  • The first title is the words printed directly on the book. This is the only book published by Breaking Ground, so I believe this to be a mistake on NLI's part
    • Weird, best to defer to the physical edition. The website also lists Paul McAree and Denise Reddy as the books editors, is this reflected in the physical book?
      • I have sent you relevant pages of the book
• "Animals in Irish Literature and Culture" uses an improperly formatted DOI link rather than using the website the DOI points to.
  • Fixed
• Minor issues in title spelling and capitalization, such as leaving out the commas in "Memories Milestones and New Horizons Reflections on the Regeneration of Ballymun" or the missing space in "An expression of matter:sculpture and installation"
  • That first book has no commas in it's title (on the book itself). Fixed the second
• Probably should remove the original citation numbers from the embedded quotes in your references, such as in ref 59.
  • Removed (I dont believe I missed any, but tell me if I did)
• Ref 3 has a bad link
  • Corrected url to JSTOR stable link