Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arch of Remembrance/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 January 2019 [1].

Arch of Remembrance edit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For my first nomination of 2019, I bring you yet another war memorial. We're getting towards the top of the tree, as evidenced by the fact that this is Lutyens' largest war memorial in the UK. It's certainly impressive, the result of a healthy budget and careful planning, but its gestation was far from easy—a story documented in this article. I hope you find it interesting, and I would be most grateful for any constructive feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text for images

File:Edwin_Lutyens.jpg: per the given tag, are any more specific copyright tags available? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Some of the details in the infobox, such as the exact designation date, don't appear to be sourced anywhere

FN18 is a dead link. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, thanks for your review. I'm not sure alt text text would add anything not covered in the captions and detailed physical description in the prose. I don't know what tag would be best for File:Edwin_Lutyens.jpg; I trusted the Internet Archive's declaration (I would assume, given that it dates from 1921, that it's PD-old, and PD in the US because it's pre-1923). I've added a link to the NHLE in the infobox and found an archived copy of FN18. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another very interesting and readable coverage of the UK's war memorials. A very minor quibbles to consider, none of which will get in the war of a support, I think:

Lead

"Lutyens first proposed a tree cathedral, which was accepted by the committee". I'm not sure a "tree cathedral" is common enough to leave unexplained in the lead (I had to do a Google search to check!) Perhaps "Lutyens first proposed a tree cathedral—crossing avenues of lime trees—which was accepted by the committee".
On review, I've trimmed the mention of the tree cathedral (tree cathedral is a red link ripe for a nice little project for someone, but it's not my area of expertise).

Commissioning

'"Arch of Remembrance".[1][12][13][14][15]' That's a long string of blue links! Any chance of bundlingthem together? (Ditto the two or three other strings lower down)
I've bundled one and moved some around so there aren't so many of those strings (I tend to group them at the end of paragraphs); the ones that are left are right at the end of their paragraphs so at least they're not interrupting the prose.

Setting

"Sir Jonathan North": do we need the full name again?
There's been a bit of a gap, but perhaps not.

Sources

Any need to link the publishers?
I normally do. It seems harmless at worst and could be helpful.

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Gavin! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure - and thanks for another very readable and interesting piece. I'm happy to Support: the article covers all the main points I would expect, is well-written, nicely illustrated with pertinent images and passes the other FAC criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....

..from the main routes out of the city to the south - why not ,"from the main south(ward) routes out of the city"?

Damn I am finding little to complain about.....a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas, thanks very much. I made the edit you suggest in the lead, where we want concision, but in the body I think it's clearer the way it is. Happy to discuss if you don't agree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, variation is the spice of life....and FAs. support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Peacemaker67 edit

I just looked at this in detail at Milhist A-Class review, and could find precious little to quibble about then. I consider this meets the Featured criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1 edit

Another excellent addition to the canon. A few minor comments below but nothing to stand in the way of my Support.

Background

We really must get a clearer image of Lutyens in Commons.
"led to commissions for war memorials across Britain and the empire" - link empire?

Commissioning

"The Duke of Rutland suggested siting the memorial outside the town hall" - given that the temporary memorial was sited there, perhaps, "The Duke of Rutland suggested siting the permanent memorial outside the town hall"?
"A design submitted by a member of the public was examined by the sub-committee, but in October 1919 the committee resolved to appoint Lutyens" - given you've mentioned two sub-committees in the para. above, perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish the sub-committees? To avoid a double "design" - "A plan submitted by a member of the public was examined by the design sub-committee, but in October 1919 the full committee resolved to appoint Lutyens".
"the costs were estimated at £23,000" - the funding story is odd; first rejecting £23K as too pricey, they then go for a £25K design which ends up costing £27K. Just an observation - you note Skelton describes the commissioning process as bumpy.

Design

I find the first image in this section a bit odd. It appears truncated. I wonder how it would look if you flipped the pair, so that the top came first? Daren't try it myself.

Setting

"The lodges are single-storey rectangular buildings which flank the gates" - I wonder if pavilions is more descriptive? It follows Pevsner and allows for a, quite useful, link.
"Both have architraves above the doorways and a pulvinated frieze below the pyramidal slate roofs and large chimney stacks" - I wonder if the distinctive pyramidal design could be mentioned?
"They support ornate iron gates which feature an overthrow which incorporates Leicester's coat of arms" - to avoid the double "which", perhaps, "They support ornate iron gates which feature an overthrow incorporating Leicester's coat of arms"?

History

"Another biographer, Tim Skelton, laments that the memorial" - super-picky but is Lutyens and the Great War strictly a biography, rather than a study? "Another writer..."?
"A ceremony is held at the memorial on Remembrance Sunday annually" - I might flip "annually" to "A ceremony is held annually at the memorial on Remembrance Sunday".
"Indian Labour Corps" - is this the same as this, Indian Army Pioneer Corps?
"Grade I is reserved for buildings of "exceptional interest" and applied to only 2.5% of listings" - "applies"?

Hi KJP, thanks for your input, both here and on the talk page. I've made almost all the changes you suggest. I'm not sure if the Indian LAbour corps and the Indian Army Pioneer Corps were the same thing; the news reports seem to suggest the labour corps didn't have a combat role. Btw, you and I are not the only ones to question the wisdom of rejecting one scheme on cost grounds and then selecting an even more expensive one; the committee don't seem to have known whether they were coming or going, hence the strong criticism from the local paper. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WTF indeed. "It's too expensive - spend more!" All the best. KJP1 (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.