Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Norwich War Memorial

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Norwich War Memorial edit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Norwich War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Yes, another war memorial. Not the most imposing design, but a relatively intricate one. It has moved around a bit during its history and was sadly neglected in the early 21st century but thankfully restored and now takes pride of place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just two minor points from me in another excellent article:

  • As this was unveiled in 1927, it is obvious that at least part of "The dates of the two world wars are inscribed..." must be a later addition. Do we know when the additional date was made?
    • Sadly not. Many war memorials were modified in this way after WWII in lieu of building a second memorial, but there rarely seem to be records of it.
  • There are a couple of places where a definite article should be used ("The architect" x 2, "The journalist", etc)
    • I don't really like using definite articles like this and I suspect it will fall out of fashion in a few years, but it hasn't yet. The title was redundant in two places anyway, but I've added it for the third.

I hope these help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much as ever. You're fast becoming my most loyal reader! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support

Looks fine to me. Some quibbles:

  • The use of "garden" and "gardens". Should it be singular or plural?
    • The sources use them interchangeably but I've gone with "garden" consistently.
  • Should Market Place be capitalised? If it's the name of the street, why the "the"?
    • Good point; it is the name of the street, so I've removed the definite article.
  • "A row of eight ornamental lamp-posts stands along either side of the memorial itself, one of which is a later replacement." This is really jarring. We suddenly jump into the present, and then this bit from the past. Any idea when it was replaced?
Comment

In Australia, the War memorials eschew religious imagery because the Catholic Church would not permit its members to participate in religious services of other denominations. This was repealed by Vatican II, but it was much too late by then.

Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Most of the smaller ones in Britain are overtly religious (usually a cross with a Bible verse in the inscription); with bigger city memorials it depends a lot on the architect and the client. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • With apologies for the delay, some thoughts... (hopefully useful ones!)
    • No apology necessary. Thanks very much for having a look!
  • "It was designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens, the last of his eight cenotaphs erected in England. " - would "to be erected" be more natural?
    • Works for me.
  • "the construction of a war memorial before he left office." - I'd argue that "war" is superfluous here
    • Fair enough.
  • " It takes the form of a low cenotaph (empty tomb) atop a screen wall" - you've already mentioned cenotaph earlier in the paragraph, so worth moving the bracketed text there (or just relying on the wikilink)
    • Does this work better?
  • "The memorial was moved from its original location outside the Guildhall..." - this is already mentioned in the preceding paragraph, so felt like repetition
    • Trimmed.
  • "The structure on which the garden is built was found to be unstable in 2004. As a result, the memorial was closed off pending repairs for seven years, during which time it fell into disrepair. Repair work began in 2008 and was completed in 2011" - presumably it well into disrepair between 2004 and 2008 then, rather than the whole seven years? (reading on, Martin Bell is complaining about it in 2007, so you could say, "By 2007..." I suppose)
    • Reworded this a little.
  • "In 2015, Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and all were granted listed building status or had their listing renewed." - could this general statement be turned into a statement about this specific memorial? (which didn't have its listing renewed or status change etc.) - e.g. "In 2015, the memorial was declared part of a "national collection" of Lutyens war memorials." or something like that?
    • Good idea. How's this? If we can come up with a form of words we both like, I'll use it in the rest of the articles.
  • Is there any way that the background could say something about Norwich and the Great War, to give context for why it was so important? (1 in 3 Norfolk men served in the war, I think, and you have the number of casualties from the town later in the article?)
    • Yes, leave this with me while I consult Smith.
  • "Norwich War Memorial is described by Historic England as being exceptional among Lutyens' war memorials." - this would work better if it explained why it was exceptional.
    • Sadly, HE don't elaborate. I don't think it adds that much so I've removed it.
  • "flambeaux" - can we wikilink (or explain)?
    • Added an explanation. Torch is the closest we've got, but it doesn't discuss use in architecture.
  • "The finishing touch to the monument" - felt informal for an encyclopaedic article. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've rewritten this as the details were slightly confused and dropped that phrase in the process.
Thanks a lot for the review! I'll come back to the outstanding points tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hchc2009: I've added this to the background. I think that was the only comment I hadn't addressed yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NB: thought the background extension was good. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hchc2009: Thanks, that was quite and interesting exercise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Great work as usual Harry. I have only the following comments:

  • " Norwich War Memorial is described by Historic England as being exceptional among Lutyens' war memorials" - can you say why here or in the final section?
    • HE don't elaborate, so not without putting words in their mouth. I've zapped it (see my response to Hchc above)
  • "several abortive attempts were made in Norwich " - can any details be provided (briefly) on the proposals other than the agriculture college?
    • None seem to have attracted any coverage; there's nothing in any of the sources.
  • "despite local objections to both Lutyens' design and to the proposed location" - what motivated these objections? Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've elaborated on this a bit.
Thanks for the comments, Nick! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments have now been addressed - nice work with this article Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions / comments

  • Are all caps needed here?
The inscriptions read "OUR GLORIOUS DEAD" (above the stone) and "THEIR NAME LIVETH FOR EVERMORE" (on the Stone itself). A further inscription in smaller font on the base of the stone reads "REMEMBERING ALSO ALL OTHERS OF THIS CITY WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES IN THE SERVICE OF THEIR COUNTRY".
It may be easier to read if the inscription is rendered in title case, i.e. "Our Glorious Dead..."
Personally, I don't think title case is easier to read than allcaps, and since the original is in allcaps and all the sources use allcaps, I think we should stick with that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first para in the lead seems quite long long. Suggest splitting up into two paras for readability. Could also be streamlined as:
Now: Norwich War Memorial (also known as Norwich City War Memorial or Norwich Cenotaph) is a First World War memorial above the market in Norwich in Eastern England. Unveiled in 1927, it originally sat outside the Guildhall and was moved to its present location in 1938. It was designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens, the last of his eight cenotaphs to be erected in England.
Suggested: Norwich War Memorial (also known as Norwich City War Memorial or Norwich Cenotaph) is a First World War memorial n Norwich in Eastern England. Designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens, it was unveiled in 1927. Originally located in front of the Norwich Guildhall, the memorial was moved to its present location above the Norwich Market in 1938.... (also unpiped for readers who may not be familiar with the Norwich landmarks).
I believe that the statement "was unveiled by a local veteran on 9 October 1927" could be dropped as the date was mentioned earlier. Along these lines, I believe that lead can be shortened considerably, leaving a few brief paragraphs, since the article itself is not that long. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to keep repeating "Norwich". If we've told the reader the memorial is in Norwich, I think it's reasonable to assume that the guildhall and the market are also in Norwich, rather than remind them that they're in Norwich for the third time in two sentences (I'm not that familiar with the city myself; I went there once, but that was about 15 years ago now). I have, though, (sort of) followed your suggestion for simplifying and paring down the lead. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll get to these soon! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Thanks for looking! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

All the three images File:The_War_Memorial_outside_Norwich_City_Hall_(geograph_2740266).jpg, File:War_memorial_in_the_Garden_of_Remembrance,_Norwich_-_geograph.org.uk_-_357681.jpg and File:The_War_Memorial_outside_City_Hall_in_Norwich_(geograph_2488759).jpg, are appropriately licensed. Also there is no problem of Freedom of Panorama, because as per Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of buildings, and sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public). Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyvm! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 14 April 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Norwich_War_Memorial&oldid=1143876876"