Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester Cenotaph/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2017 [1].

Manchester Cenotaph edit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those who have been following my edits will be shocked to see me nominating yet another war memorial, once again by the same architect, and just 10 miles down the road from the last one! This is one of Lutyens' bigger and more famous memorials, it's the main First World War memorial in England's third-largest city, and there was much controversy surrounding it even before it was commissioned. It was built in a compromise location six years after the armistice to avoid delaying the whole thing any further. This mistake was fixed 90 years later when the tram network was expanded and the memorial moved to the opposite side of the square to stand outside Manchester's impressive town hall. All this means there's quite a lot to say about it!

The article has had a GA review and an A-class review at Milhist, and I'm very much obliged to J3Mrs, KJP1, and Mike Peel for their efforts with research, copy-editing, and photos. As ever, all feedback is very welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • The link in ref 3 is dead, needs replacing
  • In WP featured articles, the bibliography is normally placed after rather than before the list of citations - even in your most recent FA! I'm not sure whether there's a specific guideline that covers this, but you are definitely out of step with general prectice. Any particular reason for wanting it this way?

Otherwise, sources look good.Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, thanks for looking. I've added an archive URL for the PMSSA link; according to their website, they're having problems with their database. As for the order, I've always found the list of works more interesting and more useful than the specific page numbers. It's the way I normally do it when I write articles but I don't get het up if somebody changes it in the course of improvements to the article, as happened at Norwich. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67 edit

I reviewed this article in detail at GAN and Milhist ACR, and had precious little to criticise then. I have reviewed the few changes since then, but it has not changed substantively since my last review. I believe the guideline Brianboulton is looking for is MOS:FNNR, my reading of which is that it isn't prescriptive about order when all notes and references are combined in one section (as Harry does here and in other war memorial FAs of his). I consider the article clearly meets the FA criteria. Harry is setting the standard for war memorial articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what the guideline says is (my emphasis): "Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last." I agree, not prescriptive, but fairly clear guidance I would have thought. When 99.9% are doing it this way, I'd say it was better to conform, but I'm not pressing the point, just curious to know why HJM thinks his way is better. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil edit

Looking good, reading through

  • Tough one, but watch for word usage repetition in the lead.
  • 16 usages of the word "memorial"
  • Trimmed to 7, including one in the infobox.
  • in Manchester, England. Manchester was - The city was
  • I'd prefer to keep this one because it's the very beginning of the article and I think the reader needs to be reminded after the opening sentence (wich discusses the era, the architect, and the exact location as well as the city).
  • Tweaked.
  • The next choice was Piccadilly Gardens, an area ripe for development, but in the interests of expediency, the council chose St Peter's Square - Expedient how
    I was trying not to get bogged down in the lead. It was expedient in that it would still have taken months or years to put it in either of the preferred sites and Manchester as already behind the curve with the British Legion breathing down its neck and they felt they had to build something at that point. There's much more detail in the body.
It only needs an additional word or two - will come back to you later on this. Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The memorial was unveiled on 12 July 1924 by the Earl of Derby, assisted by Mrs Bingle, a local resident whose three sons had died in the war. 'The memorial* cost cost - also remove one "cost"
    • Tweaked, and one "cost" zapped; well spotted.

This is a decent series of articles. Will read through more later. Ceoil (talk)

Thanks very much. Always appreciate your input! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the war memorial committee's promise that local labour would be used, the monument was built by Nine Elms Stone Masonry Works of London, at a cost of £6,940. Indeed. Earlier the article says, The committee raised £10,000 in subscriptions and donors were told local firms would benefit from its construction as unemployment was increasing in the city. The final sentence seems a bit tucked away; is there more on this, it seems it might have been highly contentious and political (or social) dynamite at the time. Would be great if you dug and expanded. Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is interesting, but I haven't been able to find any more about it (I looked when I was writing the article a few months ago). On the one hand, it makes perfect sense for Lutyens to hire a reputable stonemason's firm he'd worked with before to carry out the work, but on the other local jobs was one of the selling points.
Fine but you might be more pointed in the telling of the sequenc. Consider moving the earlier sentence to before the outcome. If you can find no more on this, as you have said, then I have doubts about comprehensiveness and breath of research, your research methods, as its too much not to have been noticed by just us two, and we live in a digital age, and major libraries have postal services. I would very much be up for sharing research here. User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Despite the war para is long and dense anyway as it is, with a lot crammed in; could you split in tow, or three.
    • Will look at this, leave it with me for a day or two.
  • A marble plaque, added nearby - why the comma
    • Because "added nearby..." is a subordinate clause, but the closing comma was missing.
  • the surrounding area was made into a garden of remembrance "was made into" isnt into, either converted to with physical alternations as fitting, or "designated"
    • Is laid out as clearer?
Yes, vs "made into". Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • began consultations on moving the cenotaph - City Council's wouldn't stir a cup of tea without having hired a consultant, so one word here is redundant
    • They actually launched a full-blown public consultation; I've clarified that.
  • The cenotaph's relocation - The relocation
    • Done.
  • Repairs costing £4,000 - Repair work costing Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Thank you very much! I'm a little pressed for time at the minute and it'll take me 20 minutes or so to fiddle with that paragraph so I'll come back to it. Much obliged, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine. I wont be looking again until next weekend anyway. Talk then. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, I've split the paragraph and moved some stuff around so hopefully it's more readable now; happy to look at it further if you think it's still an issue. I'm struggling on the local labour point, though. None of the books raise it (and several of them go into quite some detail about the various controversies that plagued the memorial's construction); I've tried searching for local newspapers, but for some reason neither Manchester City Council nor the British Newspaper Archive have the local papers from that part of the 1920s despite having extensive archives for earlier and later periods. The phrase "despite the promise" was added by another editor and although it's accurate in that the promise was made and that the stone masonry was done by a London firm, I can't see any evidence that this caused much fuss. I would have expected Skelton or one of the other modern books to have picked up on it if there was. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mitchell, well thnts ok then. I'm a Support at this stage. Ceoil (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Support. Excellent article and well-written throughout. One very small, not-picking point is all I could find to comment on:

History
  • "The memorial was unveiled..." the previous memorial referred to was Rochdale, which caused a few moments confusion.

Whatever you decide won't be a deal-breaker from me, and I'm happy to support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, SchroCat. I've cleared this up while splitting the paragraph in line with Ceoil's suggestion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice that we don't have alt text. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. But it is not worth holding up promotion over this. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Manchester_Cenotaph/archive1&oldid=1143877312"