Talk:Angel of the North/Archive 1

Nazi or Nice

The Angel of the North aroused some controversy locally and in the British newspapers not least of all because of alleged similarities to Nazi symbols

Do we have a source for this? It's a completely new one on me (of course, I know it attracted some controversy, but I thought that was just because people thought it was an eyesore, not because they thought it bore some resemblance to "Nazi symbols"). --Camembert

The BBC has [1] describes "Nazi gigantism". A further Google search reveals not a lot more Dunc|☺ 16:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I vaguely remember the stirred-up controversy in the press at the time. I think the angel looks somewhat like a luftwaffe memorial: http://www.davison03.freeserve.co.uk/THE%20ANGEL.htm

I can see what you mean there, but our personal opinion doesn't count for much. If somebody has a paper (or better still a dozen) which opines it is similar to "Nazi symbols", then lets quote it in the article. For now, I've taken the bit about a great controversy because of its similarities to "Nazi symbols" out until we get a source supporting it. The phrase "Nazi gigantism" seems to be a way of saying "it's big and I don't like it", whereas to say it has "similarties to Nazi symbols" suggests something rather more sinister, so I don't think that counts. --Camembert

I've added a reference to angels and fallen angels. Anecdota

Nazi or Nice again

I have added a narrative on the development of the Angel based on that in the 'Making an Angel' book. Hopefully this is NPOV. I will try and find a usable picture of the Chronicle with the 'Nazi or Nice' headline.

This comment was added to the main page, People have various views on the sculpture, both negative and positive. However, I would imagine the article makes that point, anyway. Bob 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Symbolism

This section was added, but seems to be original research, so I have moved it here. Bob 19:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The Angel of the North has many hidden subliminal meanings. The statue stands proud and two latin phrases spring to mind to those who love history.

CEDO NULLI - I SHALL NOT/WE SHALL NOT YIELD, this phrase symbolises the history of the region and its people. They are a strong and proud people who do not give in, they yield to no-one even when times have not been bad.

NON ANGLII, SED ANGELI - A lesser note saint, St Gregory (Pope Gregory I) stated that the people of the lands of Northumbria (previously known as Kingdom of Bernicia and Nord Angelen (by Germans), were not just a beautiful, fair coloured people but were angelic in their voice, looks and warmth.

The state of Man -- structurally the statue appears to be airplane wings attached to a man's body in place of the arms. Symbolically this appears to represent that man is unique because it is the only animal which can create its own wings when it has none, creating tools and manipulating nature to achieve it's dreams and overcoming it's shortcomings. In quite an irony the statue also shows resemblence to a crucifiction. In effect, paradoxically, a man's technology can also serve as a function of his own demise. Rugz 17:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think the Angel of the North marks the end of a flying-radius of the German Luftwaffe in WWII. --Bauernfreund (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Meanings of the statue

Following on from the above subsection (Symbolism), could we put in some information about what the Angel means into the article. Surely the sculptor must have made some comments in the sales pitch to the clients. Plus interesting information about what's carved on it. Right now there's none of this 'artistic' information in the article, just the plain mechanical information (how big it is, what it's made of...). I came to the article on wikipedia because I've driven past it and wondered what it all represented. Angels aren't usually portrayed as having aircraft like wings, and why the huge statue, why make it out of that kind of material? cheers --mgaved (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy?

"Angel of the North aroused some controversy locally and in the British newspapers when first erected, but has now come to be considered as a landmark for the North East of England."

Aroused some controversy? Why? What could be controversial about a giant angel? 141.155.28.92 00:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the supposed "controversy" should be overstated. The controversy was not at all widespread and is typical of virtually all new developments. Newspapers make money by moaning about things, but I'd of thought though it would be extremely difficult to find a scientifically conducted poll showing anything but a very minute proportion of people objecting to the sculpture upon it's creation. Canderra 14:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Replicas and Imitations

Thread retitled from "Replica's and Imitation's".

Are there any known replicas or imitations, i think i remember one being made for a rich Russian business man: is there any proof or knowledge since it would be an important section similar to one on The Hollywood Sign page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T saston (talk • contribs) 18:40, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Image gallery

What's the point of the image gallery in this article? The main image illustrates the article perfectly - surely these other images are just vanity - a way of people featuring their own, poorer images? Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the gallery is reasonably useful (at least some of the photos anyway):

• It shows the real colours of the Angel (despite being a featured pic, the main image has ridiculously over-saturated colours - the gallery shows more life-like colours.
• The main image is at an angle and does not give a good representation of just how wide the wings are, whereas the frontal pictures do.
• One of the images is a close-up, which gives a good view of the construction of the Angel, whereas the main image does not.
• A photo that clearly shows the angle of the wings would be useful, but the edge-on one is at sunset and shows no detail.

The sunset photos are probably not so useful --Ozhiker (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair points - thanks. I'll be bold and remove the sunset ones. Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the text of the Angel of the North notice public domain or released under a GFDL-compatible licence?

I certainly can't see how using such a large quote instead of writing a proper section can be free use. In fact, I was very close to deleting it right away. How is this use justified, and even if it doesn't break copyright law, is such a large quote justified in Wikipedia in any case? --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you're right, it's not really justified at all - I think it was probably added by an anon ip at some point by the looks of it. I propose we just keep a few quotations for incorporating in the main text and remove the rest. Bob talk 07:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Since it is a copyright violation, I'm going to have to go ahead and remove it. I'm afraid I won't have time to incorporate any of the details into the text. It looks like it was cut & pasted from http://flickr.com/photos/42057291@N00/2725795046 - the formatting changes match; see e.g. dash changed to hyphen at "The angel has three functions" (it only comes up on a Google image search, so I didn't find it before). The bottom of the sign is missing in the photo, where any copyright information would be held. --Rogerb67 (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Help for Southerners

Did you know that the wings are longer than Nelson's column is tall (51.5 m, column and statue)? I thought this might be useful somewhere, so those not willing to venture into the frozen wastelands of the North might get an idea of how big the thing actually is, especially when stood underneath it.--SquidSix (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Portrayed in British passport

The Angel of the North image is portrayed on page 23 of the new design of British passport. Might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article. Shcha (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Angel of the North. 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/20060721182035/http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/angel/biography/angel-of-the-north to http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/angel/biography/angel-of-the-north
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/visualart/story/0%2C%2C2249061%2C00.html

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) 22:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Angel of the North.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wings

   The wings do not stand straight sideways, but are angled 3.5 degrees forward; 

I have read this sentence over and over again, but I still cannot understand what it is trying to say. Can it be made clearer, please?

Toddcs (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Construction Controversy

Is this Cllr Wallace affair even worth mentioning? The BBC piece only says his vote might have affected the result.

Savvo (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Retitling and reordering

WP:CSECTION suggests that Sections headed "Controversy(ies)" are undesirable. Although a guideline, rather than a policy, it contains good advice, which I think is applicable here. The Controversies section dominates the article, with multiple sub-headings, even for the most trivial incidents, which are then covered in brief, often single-sentence, paragraphs. I'm planning to rename it, something like "Reception", and reorder it. Any concerns? KJP1 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It also has a few too many images, in the Gallery and dumped below the infobox. I'd like to trim these. KJP1 (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

For use in Reception section

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

External links

• [6]
• [7]

Largest sculpture in Britain

The page says the Angel of the North is the largest sculpture in Britain but the page for the ArcelorMittal Orbit claims it is the largest piece of public art in Britain and a sculpture too. Which is worthy of the title?Cjhr (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Which one has a reference that proves it is the largest? My suggestion is to remove both claims unless it can be proved beyond any doubt. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The original cite, a blog, was weak. Have replaced it with a better one. My opinion, but no more, is that The Orbit is more a tower than a sculpture. KJP1 (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The Kelpies are taller - they are definitely sculptures. ArcelorMittal Orbit is also taller - but like @KJP1 my (worthless) opinion is that's not a sculpture. Does tallest equal largest? If there are multiple competing claims and no definition for largest then in my opinion the claims should be removed. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back. Not sure I’d agree. We go with what the sources say, and I think our making calls on what constitutes “largest” is probably OR. If there are RS which state it is the largest, I think they can go in. If there are other RS which make claims for other sculptures, they can go in too, perhaps by way of a footnote. A, similar, example was whether William Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong was the first scientist peer, dealt with by way of a footnote (c), here. KJP1 (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Have tried a footnote approach. See what you think. KJP1 (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cjhr: @10mmsocket: @KJP1: Hi all, I'm jumping into this discussion a bit late but interested in improving the article. My take is that we can't have the pretty bold claim in the lead that "it is the largest sculpture in Britain", then further down have a footnote that there is another sculpture that may hold that title. Perhaps a better claim for the lead is one from Gateshead Council that the Angel is "believed to be the largest angel sculpture in the world" (from The history of the Angel of the North). Then in the body of the article, we include the fact that it may be the largest sculpture in Britain by some measures, but other sculptures also claim to be. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good approach - go and boldly make the change! 10mmsocket (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed - have a go, and we can see what it looks like. KJP1 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both, I've changed the lead and the sentence in Concept and description. Let me know what you think. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Angel model at Eggleston Hall Gardens

Hi. Really delighted to see the work on this article, thank you. I just wanted to mention that there is a model of the angel at Eggleston Hall Gardens – if you google it, or just look at their website here it is pretty immediately in evidence. Now I have no idea of the provenance or status of this thing, though I do know it has been there quite a while: like, I have a photo of some dick a dignified then-middle-aged gentleman standing by it in 2002. (Oh look, he is holding out his arms like wings ... how original. It's a little over his height, maybe another head taller. Not huge, though obvs the wings ain't small.) Is it formally a maquette or did someone just get handy in the shed with some scrap pallets and a bit of wood dye?? ... So, is this interesting or should I just stfu as I understand the young people put it? Yes, if only I were a proper person then I should try to research this myself but I honestly wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I'm just mentioning it, and I apologize unreservedly if it's a waste of time and/or already discussed and discarded. I will not take offence if you tell me where (within reason) to get off. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The replica was created for a local flower festival, thus it is not an official replica, not something (in my opinion) worthy of mentioning in the article. Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered Thanks for bringing this to our attention :) I agree with @10mmsocket that it probably isn’t notable enough to be included in the article, especially if it’s not a maquette. I noticed some images on the Commons of unofficial replicas, like one made of Lego (possibly for Lego Land? Definitely on display somewhere). But we could end up with a very long section of the article if we try to find all the replicas! Unexpectedlydian (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you very much for your consideration and for pointing out that terrible but hilarious story. No, it really does not need to be in ... it's a bit of fun but not of any significance or notability for the article: pure fluff. Thanks again and best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. If it were a maquette, that would be different, but as it is, I think it shades to trivia. As an aside, I see you have struck lucky with your GAN reviewer. If you do ultimately take it to FAC, let me know and I’d be delighted to review it. But Harry is right, the referencing will need to be consistent. KJP1 (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It might be worth a mention if academic sources mention it as part of a discussion on its impact on the local area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 2 April 2022 (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:Angel of the North/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) 20:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments to follow shortly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Done You don't need "pictured" in image captions as a general rule
•  Done the most significant landmarks which signalled travellers' arrival into Tyneside, when travelling south to north, "when travelling from the south" is shorter and simpler
•  Done Link A1 and A167 (only) on first mention in the body.
•  DoneThe intention was for it to act as a "millennial image that would be a marker and guardian for our town" You need to attribute the quote to the speaker
  • I've found the original source and author so have cited these.
•  Done Maybe a couple of words on what Northern Arts is?
•  Done Quite a few duplicate links. As a rule, we only link terms once in the lead and once in the body. There is a script at User:Evad37/duplinks-alt tha tcna highlight these for you.
•  DoneThe history jumps quite abruptly from proposals and models to the finished sculpture being transported. Suggest removing the latter to avoid redundancy with the later section.
•  Done 5.3 metres (17 ft) base use parameter |adj=on to use the adjectival form.
•  Doneit was decided that the material would not be strong enough Try to avoid the passive voice if it's known who made the decision.
•  Done other sculptures including The Statue of Liberty "The" is not part of the name (hence the link is a redirect)
•  Done convenient passage into Tyne and Wear from the South "south" is not a proper noun
•  Done Additionally, nearby housing estates and commercial areas add to the amount of people who regularly witness the sculpture Suggest something like "the statue can also be seen from nearby housing estates and commercial areas" to reduce verbiage and redundancy.
•  Done However, this was intentional no need for "however"; there's no contradiction here
•  Done The sculpture is made of COR-TEN weather-resistant steel and was constructed in three parts you've already established what it's made of
•  Done The first wing was attached to the body at around 11am MOS:TIME dictates a space (preferably a non-breaking space) between "11" and "am"
•  Done which Gormley himself called no need for "himself"
•  Done The Angel has also been suggested to have improved the wellbeing and pride of Gateshead residents By whom?
• References:
  •  Done Per WP:RSP, Bild is a tabloid and considered "generally unreliable"
  •  Done What makes "AboutBritain.com" a reliable source?
  •  Done You seem to be using a mix of reference styles. Some multi-page sources (books, journals, etc) are in the bibliography, others not. Some use sfn, some don't.
    • Thank you for raising this, I think I've fixed it by changing to sfn throughout and adding multi-page sources into bibliography.
  •  Done Titles of books/journal articles should be in title case
  •  Done Use ISBN13s, not 10s. You can convert them using this site
  •  Done For Newton & Mills, 93 is the issue number, not the volume number.

This is in very good shape. The above is mostly nit-picking, some of it at a higher level than GA. I don't see any reason this couldn't go on to FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a great help, thankyou. Have made a start on some of the points. --10mmsocket (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for your swift and comprehensive review @HJ Mitchell, and for taking on the majority of amendments @10mmsocket! I believe I've addressed the remaining points, look forward to hearing from you! Unexpectedlydian (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for an easy and enjoyable GA review. I'm happy to pass this. I hope you'll take it to FAC and be justly rewarded for all the hard work you've put into this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 4 April 2022 (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.