Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Northampton War Memorial/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2016 [1].

Northampton War Memorial edit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a war memorial. And surprisingly enough it's in Northampton. I've been working my way through Lutyens' war memorials for the best part of the last year and this is one of the articles I'm most proud of, and hopefully the first of several I'll be bringing here. It's just had a very helpful GA review and I think it well covers its subject. I of course hope you agree but I'm grateful for all constructive feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singora I've just skimmed this article and like it a lot. Let me leave one of Mr CasLiber's "virtual placeholders". I'll go over things in detail throughout the coming week. Singora (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Bounder edit

  • I'll be back soon with more comments, but the line "Today it is a Grade I listed building" jumped out at me. Would "As of 2016..." or similar be better than "Today", which has a rather transient feel to it. – The Bounder (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I always thought "as of" was a rather ugly, unproseworthy construction. I can change it if you really want but I think the sentence is much better the way it is.
      • Try: "In 2015 it was declared ...." and perhaps add a footnote stating that all Lutyen's war memorials were accorded similar status (or had their listing renewed) at the same time. The word "now" is definitely wrong. Singora (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

  • Is it worth adding the year when it received its grade I listing?
    • Done.
  • The caption for the main image says "For servicemen from Northamptonshire killed in the First World War", but the body says it also covers the Second World War (albeit added at a later date – as most British memorials were). It seems awkward to have such a contradiction in such a prominent position.
    • I'm not sure it's a contradiction, but I've added it nonetheless; it doesn't do any harm.

Commissioning

  • "Lutyens' memorial". The previous section deals with several of Lutyens' memorials. Would "The Northampton Memorial" serve as a better indicator that we have moved on to focus on this particular memorial?
    • Fair point; I've tweaked it.
  • Abingdton Street: A spelling mistake? (not sure whether this is as it should be, or Abingdon, or Abington)
    • A typo; should be Abington; fixed
  • Shouldn't the two references that follow "including Rochdale Cenotaph" be after the bracket and semi colon?
    • I put them before because they're there to verify the text inside inside the brackets rather than the whole sentence or the whole paragraph.
  • The final paragraph looks (to my untutored eye, at least) as if it should be in the following section. This is reinforced by the repetition of some of the information in the first line of the Design section. (If you choose not to move the whole paragraph to the Design section, you should make sure there isn't such repetition)
    • I've followed your suggestion and moved the paragraph into the design section and reworked it to fit better.

Design

  • As you link First World War in an earlier section, it may be worth linking the Second World War in this section (or having them both unlinked)
    • Done.
  • Do we have a date for the upgrading from Grade II to Grade I listing (cf. my earlier comment on this for the lead too)
    • Not an exact date; the date on Historic England's press release is 7 November 2015, but the NHLE only gives the date of the most recent amendment (which could be anything from a change in grade to fixing a typo).

I hope you don't mind, but I made a couple of very small edits – spelling, largely – I hope these are OK, and that you find the comments useful. – The Bounder (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never mind having my typos fixed, and it's always nice when someone takes the time to read something you've written and offer feedback. Do see what you think of the improvements, @The Bounder:. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That looks great. A note for those who take action on these matters: I am a relatively new editor, so please weigh my comments and support accordingly. Thanks. - The Bounder (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Singora edit

Note to Mr Mitchell and Coordinators. The King of Thailand has died. Things have changed a lot here over the last 24 hours. I'll do my review next week. Singora (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall, very good!
  • See my comment above re: the year of lisitng
    • I've dropped the today; I still think it read nicer the other way though
      • Here's what you've got "It is a Grade I listed building, having been upgraded in 2015 when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and all were granted listed building status or had their listing renewed"
      • 1. The word upgrade is a bit "iffy".
      • 2. How about "It is a Grade I listed building, having been accorded the status in 2015 when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and either ....." Hmmm. That's not gonna work.
      • 3. How about "In 2015 the memorial was designated a Grade I listed building; in the same year Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and accorded either a similar status or had their listing renewed" This isn't too bad! What do you think? Singora (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The trouble is that's not quite accurate; it was designated in the 70s, and upgraded (increased in grade from Grade I to Grade I) last year. I'm biased because I wrote it, of course, but I still think the original was the most prosaic way of phrasing it. --HJM
          • I've tweaked this again slightly so now we have Today it is a Grade I listed building; it was upgraded from Grade II in 2015 when.... How does that sound for you? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try dropping one of the instances of "by" -- "The monument's design was completed and approved by 1920, but its installation was delayed by six years".
    • I've rewritten the sentence slightly.
Background edit
  • Isn't among better than amongst (similar to while vs. whilst)? "Amongst the most prominent designers of war memorials". I also think Lutyens should be the subject of this sentence.
    • No strong opinion, so done
      • Okay. Singora (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC) NOTE: I'll save this as I go along because I've got a really shitty internet connection tonight. Singora (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: "Prior to the First World War, Lutyens established his reputation designing country houses for wealthy patrons; following it, he devoted much of his time to ...". Following what? Try something like "he later devoted ..."
    • I've rewritten this slightly as well
      • Not sure if this is better or not, but I don't think it really matters. Singora (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commissioning edit
  • RE: "Northampton's first war memorial was a temporary cenotaph in wood and plaster". Shouldn't this be "made of" or "made from"?
  • RE: "the temporary cenotaph was the focal point for remembrance services until the unveiling of the permanent memorial". Isn't this self-evident? If you disagree, at least change "unveiling" to "construction".
    • I think it's worth mentioning but I did make the change you suggest (though I went with "installation")
  • RE: "Suggestions included renovation of civic building". Plural?
  • This sentence is way too long: "The application was submitted in 1922 by the vicar of All Saints' Church, the Reverend Geoffrey Warden, and sponsored by two church wardens and two parishioners,[9] but construction work did not commence until 1926, six years after the completion of the designs".
    • Good point. Rewritten.
      • Typo: "submitted the application was submitted in 1922" I'm now saving again. Singora (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh dear! Fixed that, thanks! --HJM
  • RE: "the obelisks had been carved and were awaiting the colouring of the flags". Why not say painting?
    • Fair enough; done.
      • Mmmm. You now have "awaiting the painting". That sounds awkward. Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Design edit
  • The first paragraph doesn't read well. You introduce the three design elements and say they're characteristic of Lutyens' work; you state that the Northamptom memorial is one of Lutyen's more elaborate designs because it uses these three elements. That makes no sense. Re-write the paragraph and strip out the repetition. As things stand you also have a stray semi-colon after the word obelisk.
  • RE: "The obelisks are ornately decorated; a narrow cross is set into the obelisks themselves while the town's coat of arms is moulded onto the columns supporting the obelisks". Use a colon rather a semi-colon. How many times does this sentence use the word "obelisk"?
  • The overall structure of this section is confusing: you introduce the obelisks and describe the columns supporting them; you then flip back to the obelisks to talk about their flags; the first sentence of paragraph four brings us back to the obelisks to offer details about their inscriptions. Why not just describe each design element step by step:
    • 1. Obelisks + flags + inscriptions
    • 2. The columns supporting the obelisks (including their "deep decorative niches that form an arch shape beneath the obelisks").
    • 3. The plinths supporting the columns
    • 4. The Stone of Remembrance
      • Leave this with me for a few days if you could, and I'll look when I've had more sleep. --HJM
        • 1. RE: "A narrow cross is set into the obelisks themselves". The word themselves isn't needed.Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. --HJM
        • 2. RE: "Northampton's is one of". You've just used this possessive in the previous paragraph. Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've reworded this. --HJM
        • 3. RE: "several". This is one of those words that have very little meaning. Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've only used it here where there isn't a precise figure to hand. For example, I believe seven of Lutyens' memorials feature an obelisk, but I don't have a source for that other than my own original research. --HJM
        • 4. RE: "Lutyens first proposed stone flags for use on the Cenotaph on Whitehall, but the proposal was rejected in favour of fabric flags (though they were used on several other memorials, including Rochdale Cenotaph and the Arch of Remembrance in Leicester)". This is off-topic and should be a footnote. Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The origin of the flags is on-topic; its use on other memorials is straying a little, but I'm loathe to create a whole new section for half a sentence. --HJM
        • 5. RE: "deliberately devoid of any elaborate decoration". The opposite, accidentally devoid, would make no sense. The word "deliberately" isn't needed. Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose we can get rid of this. --HJM
        • 6. Typo (two, if fact!): "The whole memorial raised on stone platform which forms a narrow path between the stone and the obelisks" Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History edit
  • RE: "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd processed to the new memorial with the parade led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and including nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders". Try: "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd proceeded to the new memorial: the parade was led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and included nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders"
    • That was how I wrote it originally but somebody changed it; I agree with you so I've changed it back
  • RE: "he observed that communities across Northamptonshire would be erecting their own memorials, but he felt that .." The second "he" is redundant.
  • RE: "the names of the fallen inscribed on the garden walls". You need a "were".
  • I don't see that the last sentence of the last paragraph is needed.
    • It's needed because it explains how it got the status it holds now. The paragraph starts with its original listing, then discusses Historic England's project, and then comes to its current status.

Thanks very much for the detailed review. I'll get back to you on the structure of the design section, probably at weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Singora: I've re-written the design section, largely following your suggestion. Could you have another look when you have a minute? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's comprehensive given the subject and seems to meet FA criteria!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singora / More comments

  • 1. You have "Each obelisk sits on a tall, four-tiered rectangular column which itself stands on a wider, undercut square plinth". I'm sure this should be "Each obelisk sits on a tall, four-tiered rectangular column that stands stands on a wider, undercut square plinth". Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. --HJM
  • 2. RE: "both are particularly fine designs in which Lutyens uses the obelisks with "dignity and simple dramatic effect", according to historian Richard Barnes". Not convinced the historian's name is needed. He's not linked, and so is presumably not noteworthy. Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. RE: "Unusually, the Stone of Remembrance is inscribed on both faces". Why is this unusual? Would a footnote clarify things? Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it's inscribed on both faces; there are several hundred of them and I'm not aware of another with two inscriptions (Skelton makes a point of noting this). --HJM
  • 4. RE: "The whole memorial is raised on a stone platform which forms a narrow path between the stone and the obelisks". The word "that" is better that "which". This is pedantic, but nonetheless correct. Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. --HJM
  • 5. RE: "The crowd was large enough that the service could not be accommodated in the church itself". The word "itself" is redundant.Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. --HJM
  • 6. RE: "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd proceeded to the new memorial with the parade led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and including nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders" -> "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd proceeded to the new memorial: the parade was led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and included nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders"
    • Done (but with a semi-colon; I'm loathe to use a colon in prose). --HJM
  • 7. RE: "In November 2015, as part of commemorations for the centenary of the First World War, Lutyens' war memorials were recognised as a national collection and all of his free-standing memorials in England were listed or had their listing status reviewed and their National Heritage List for England list entries were updated and expanded". This just seems a bit wrong or a bit awkward or a bit hard to follow. Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Final comments / Singora

For those last two sentences I've referred to above, could you not try "All of his free-standing memorials in England were listed or had their listing status reviewed and their National Heritage List for England list entries updated and expanded. As part of this process, Northampton War Memorial was upgraded to a Grade I listed building"? In other words, they "had" their listing status reviewed and "had" their entries updated and expanded. I don't see why you need the "were". My re-wording of the second sentence obviates the need to repeat "status". Singora (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. :) Is everything resolved to your satisfaction, @Singora:? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Singora (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I wasn't sure that we'd had a full-on source review for formatting/reliability so gave the reference section a scan. No issues re. reliability and not too much re. formatting although:

  • While we often tend to link publishers, I don't know that we need link locations.
  • I think we may have had this discussion before but we generally seem to place citations/footnotes before sources/bibliography...

These are not enough for me to hold up promotion though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2016 (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/Northampton_War_Memorial/archive1&oldid=1075706240"