Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/York City War Memorial

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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

York City War Memorial edit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Featured article candidates/York City War Memorial/archive1

No prizes for guessing what this one is! Following a brief hiatus over the holidays and while I worked on another article, this one follows on directly from the North Eastern Railway War Memorial which passed an ACR at the tail end of last year. As always, all comments are gratefully received. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder.

I'm not sure of the wording "the council tasked the war memorial committee to consider" I think it should either be "the council tasked the war memorial committee with considering", or "the council instructed (or similar) the war memorial committee to consider".
I'm not sure of the wording "complete its characteristic ..." is there a missing word?

Excellent work as always, cheers – The Bounder (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed both of these now. My apologies for the delay (real life got in the way, alas), and thank you very much for the review, The Bounder. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another nice piece of work in an increasingly impressive series. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

Good work, just a few comments for your consideration:

'Lead': The lead seems overly long given the overall length of the main body of the article; I suggest condensing the first and second paragraphs particularly, the third is OK in length.
- Fair point; trimmed.
'Lead': There are cites in the lead; is there a reason for this as generally they aren't required as the lead is just a summary of the main body and thus is fully cited anyway?
- A hangover from when I first wrote the article; they don't harm anything but they're not really necessary either.
'Lead': Also in the lead (and in the 'History and design' section): should "grade II" be title case?
- I generally don't put it in title case (we don't use title case for "listed building" so it looks odd to me). Some people do and I don't care enough to fight over it, but I don't think there's a firm rule.
'Inception': "The committee gave Lutyens a budget of £2,000 (1920)" Maybe make more explicit we are referring to £2,000 at the time?
- Do you have a suggestion for this?
  - I had thought that adding some sort of a conversion £2,000 in 1920 into the pound of today would be useful to better appreciate the value ofthe work involved but thinking about it, this could cause maintenance/update issues in years to run. I will make it a suggestion for your consideration only instead, and add my support. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few dupe links: Historic England, North Eastern Railway War Memorial, River Ouse.
- Removed, except for the NER Memorial, which is important enough to be linked in two places.

That's all from me. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Zawed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

All looks good to me. A surprisingly interesting article on what at first glance seems to be an unexceptional memorial. The memorials in Britain are similar to those in Australia. Given the choice of having a functional memorial or a pile of stone, the Great War generation chose stone. Whereas memorials to the Second World War come in the form of either adding "1939-45" to Great War memorials (many of which now also sport "Korea", "Vietnam", "Iraq" etc) or the purely functional ("memorial library/swimming pool/squash court" etc). My only quibble with the article is that I had no idea what a Grade II or II* listed building is; I turned to listed building with little hope but found it there. Do you think it would work to add the definitions here? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the memorials are intricate and beautiful and remarkable in their own right, but more often than not it's the stories behind the lumps of stone that make them interesting, and deeply poignant. Some of the most moving memorials, in my experience, are the ones in small towns ad villages (there's something very distressing about seeing more names on a war memorial than houses in a village), and of course the proliferation of them is itself deeply poignant. I agree with your suggestion wrt listing statuses and I've had similar feedback on my ongoing FAC so I've added it in to both articles and I'll go through the others and add it to them later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support
- All tool checks ok [i.e. no dabs, no repeat links, external links work] (no action req'd)
- Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase or copy vios etc [1] (no action req'd)
- I tweaked a comma [2], but otherwise prose looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AC, and I agree with your comma tweak! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check the memorials depicted in the photographs are all PD-UK, because the sculptor died before 1947, but my query is about whether they are PD in the US. They can't be PD-US-1923-abroad due to the dates they were completed. Nikkimaria, could you take a look and advise please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The UK has had freedom of panorama for both architecture and sculpture since before the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, the images are all okazay. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 24 February 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.