Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arch of Remembrance

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.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Arch of Remembrance edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Featured article candidates/Arch of Remembrance/archive1

I'm back after a bit of a break with yet another war memorial by Edwin Lutyens. This one is Lutyens' largest and arguably most impressive in the UK, and yet it could have could have been even more impressive had it not been for poor management in the early stages of the project. Having stood next to it, it's an awe-inspiring and deeply moving piece of architecture so I hope this article does it justice.

As ever, I'd be very grateful for fresh eyes on it before it goes to FAC. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

Minor stuff to prove that I've read it:
"The war ended with with an armistice"

"the summitView of the top of the arch" Think this caption is messed up.

All looks good.

Image review

All images have appropriate licences. Curioius though: what is the reason for the multiple image in the Design secgtion?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye! I especially appreciate the minor stuff—good to iron out the creases before it goes to FAC. And the multiple image was purely a way to fit in an extra image without causing too much text sandwiching. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What got you interested in doing articles on Lutyens' memorials? Was it an outgrowth of Wiki Loves Monuments? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed edit

Minimal issues here:

"... as a result of which it was granted city status in 1919." This sentence is from the lede but strikes me as being a little tangential for this section.
Background: "...open land to the south-east of Leicester city centre..."; shouldn't Leicester be linked here?
Background: "...the first batch of Howitzer shells"; that should be a lower case h on Howitzer.
Commissioning: "The war ended with an armistice on 11 November 1918."; I find the presence of this sentence a little jarring and doesn't seem to flow into the next one. Suggest reworking somehow.
Commissioning: "The new proposal was approved by the meeting."; should this be approved at the public meeting?
Design: "...four pairs of stone piers which support gates..."; to avoid repetition of "which", I suggest rephrasing to "four pairs of stone piers supporting gates..."

That's it from me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks very much for having a look. I think I've addressed all your comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM edit

This is in great nick, Harry. Just two minor points from me:

in the lead, "two small (24 feet (7.3 metres) tall)" perhaps clarify they are on the sides?
the dome is mentioned in the lead and body, but what is it constructed from?

That's all I could find. Nice work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peacemaker. I've made the first clarification. For the second, the mention is in a paragraph that starts "The memorial, in Portland stone..." Is that not clear enough? I've also tried to illustrate the different design elements as much as possible. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed that it would have been another material, bronze or something. But if it is stone, then ignore that point. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

The sources all appear to be of high quality and reliable for what they are citing. I couldn't find anything else via Google Books or Google Scholar that hadn't already been used. No formatting issues. Good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.