Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal Naval Division War Memorial/archive1

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) 07:49, 20 May 2018 [1].

Royal Naval Division War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of a delay, I'm back with another war memorial. This article is more substantial than most. The unique nature of the formation it commemorates seems to have generated considerable interest, with several very detailed accounts of its construction and history available independently of each other. The memorial itself has something of an unusual history—it took a long time and a lot of delicate negotiation to come to fruition, only to be dismantled at the start of the Second World War, after which it was reinstalled but in a different location. It wasn't finally reinstalled in its original location until the 21st century. Since then, it seems to have fallen into obscurity as the many colourful characters associated with it have faded into history.

I've been working on the article over the last few months, with help and advice from Another Believer and Ham II, and I'm indebted to Carcharoth for his help with research and general advice, as well as to the folks at MilHist for a successful A-class review. As ever, all feedback will be greatly appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article at A class and affirm that it is of Featured Article quality. (It also received image a source reviews.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for your help, Dan. How attached are you to this edit? I don't like to revert wholesale but you removed a bit of detail. It's a significant part of the story that the RND began planning a memorial early, even tough it took a long time to come to fruition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a lot in that edit, covering some important FAC prose points. Which month or year did they begin planning? - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not meaning any offence, Dan, but I'm not seeing any fundamental prose issues there and the edit introduced more problems than it solved. The source says "Immediately after the war"; it doesn't give a more precise date but the RND were ahead of the curve. A simple "after the war" doesn't cut it. Then you removed almost the entire sentence about the RND joining the navy's commemorations, which leaves the reader wondering why it's mentioned in the first place and leaves the mention of Trafalgar Square without context. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do what you want with the bit about Trafalgar Square. If I understand correctly, you have one source saying "Immediately after the war", but you don't know when it happened and you have no other sources that talk about it. I don't think this is a case where people would object if you want to repeat "Immediately after the war", because that's all the information you have. I also don't think you would be faulted for saying "After the war", if in your judgment it's impossible to know what this particular writer meant by "immediately". It's harder, I think, to justify adding a lot of words to "Immediately after the war", at least at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I've restored the bit about Trafalgar Square; I'm open to distilling it if you feel it's too wordy but your version was too concise in my opinion. And I've gone with just "immediately"; my previous version was perhaps an abundance of caution on my part. Does that work for you? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Factotem

Source review

Authors Online, the publisher of Quinlan's British War Memorials, looks to me like a self-publishing house.
- I'm pretty sure it is, but I'm confident the book is reliable. Quinlan cites his sources and his narratives line up neatly with other sources. He's also cited or recommended by by several other authors (his account of the RND memorial is specifically recommended by Ward-Jackson).

Fair enough. Given that endorsement, and the fact that the source has been checked out OK on at least two successful FACs, I see no reason to make an issue out of this. Factotem (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A random check of statements sourced to the Historic England source, the only one available to me online, did not reveal any concerns with accuracy of sourcing other than the fact that punctuation in the inscription of Rupert Brooke's The Dead is not consistent between article and sources. I would point out, though, that even the two sources available online (IWM and HE) are not consistent with each other.
Googling royal naval division war memorial revealed only a page on the website of the architects who handled the memorial's last move missing from the sources used. I don't think that materially affects the article, and I found nothing to suggest that the article isn't a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature.
- I'd seen that (I think it's linked on the talk page) but decided not to use it; it's a nice glossy website but it doesn't contain a lot of information.

That Authors Online issue is a bit of a worry, but otherwise the sources check out OK. Factotem (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

image review

File:Brigadier-General_Arthur_M_Asquith,_by_Ambrose_McEvoy.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki. I've added a PD-US-1923 tag. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Following the recent discussions about spreading the load, I am essaying my first source review. (I also do source spot-checks from time to time, and will happily go on doing so if asked.) If anyone sees any failings in my source review, please let me know. All the printed sources are properly and consistently cited, and I see no reason to think that any fail the WP:RS standards. The online sources could hardly be more authoritative, the links all work, and the sources say what the article says they say. This seems to me to meet all the sourcing criteria laid down for our guidance, and am I happy to endorse it. I am not aware that doing a source review disqualifies one from supporting or opposing an article's promotion to FAC, and I venture to add my support here. The article seems to me a model of its kind. – Tim riley talk 18:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

One overlink.
The only things that I might change, and they're pretty trivial, would be to link obelisk and perhaps spell out the name of Churchill's grandson although that might cause some confusion between them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking, Sturm! I believe the only duplicate link is Whitehall, and I think that's worth keeping (it might not be clear from its name what Whitehall is, and it's quite important in the two places where it's discussed). Linking obelisk seems sensible. I linked the grandson the way I did because that seemed the least confusing way of doing it, but I'll happily look at alternatives if you think even that is confusing—perhaps Churchill's grandson, also called Winston Churchill or something like that? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You could move the brief explanation of Whitehall from the second usage to the first and then delink the second usage. "Also called Winston Churchill" would work fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if that wouldn't just be messy, since we already have a brief explanation of the Cenotaph next to the first usage. I've added the "also called Winston". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's fine, but then what's the point of the second link to Whitehall? The article really isn't big enough so that a reader would forget what it means by the time he gets to the second use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it's potentially helpful for someone who isn't familiar with London and doesn't realise that Whitehall is a street. I'm not wedded to it, but I think it's more likely to be helpful than harmful to a reader. I'll take it out if you feel strongly because one link isn't worth a long debate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that your brief explanation suffices and that the second link is redundant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I've taken it out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and a few comments, from KJP1

Another fine addition to the oeuvre. A few comments/queries/suggestions below but nothing to stand in the way of my support.

Lead

"which was unveiled on 25 April 1925—ten years to the day" - I'm crap on hyphens but that doesn't look quite right. Too long and no spacing either side? Ignore if I'm wrong on MoS, which is entirely possible.

It's an emdash, which is a acceptable way of breaking up a sentence (see MOS:DASH for an extremely detailed explanation of the different uses for nearly identical horizontal lines!)

"produced a design for a fountain connected to an extension of the balustrade of the Admiralty Extension building" - to avoid two "extension"s in close proximity, perhaps something like, "continuing/linking with the balustrade of the AE building"?

Done (sort of).

"It was not re-erected until 1951, when it was moved to the grounds of the Royal Naval College in Greenwich" - this confused me a little. It sounds like there was a post-war reconstruction on Horseguards, followed by a move to Greenwich. Perhaps something like, "It was not re-erected until 1951, when it was rebuilt/reconstructed in the grounds of the Royal Naval College in Greenwich"?

Done.

Background

"This, along with his work for the Imperial War Graves Commission, led to commissions for war memorials across Britain and the empire" France, Belgium? Perhaps, "across Britain, Europe and the empire"?

But the commissions in France and Belgium were all with the IWGC whereas this is talking about his other work

Commissioning

"At this point, the Admiralty was considering plans for a large memorial to the Royal Navy in London's," - delete 's.

Oops, that's a gremlin from a previous edit. Fixed.

"Sir Reginald Blomfield—a government adviser on war memorials and a prominent designer of memorials in his own right—" - I think Sir Reginald's primary Notability is as an architect, rather than an adviser. Perhaps, "the architect Sir Reginald Blomfield—a government adviser on war memorials and a prominent designer of memorials in his own right.." - though Tim may damn this as a false title!

That certainly is is primary notability, but he only appears in this story as an adviser (I suspect through the Royal Fine Arts Commission, of which more in my next article, but that's not spelt out). As an aside, I wouldn't be surprised if Lutyens rejected the advice purely because it came from Blomfield!

Design

The Dead - a couple of points. I think the title is actually, The Dead III., or III. The Dead, as there is also The Dead IV. Also, the punctuation doesn't follow the punctuation in the poem, although it's confusing as it is in caps. Specifically, Line 1 has commas either side of you bugles, i.e. "Blow out, you bugles, over the rich Dead!, traces of which can, I think, be seen here [File:RND War memorial, London, Rupert Brooke - The Dead III.jpg].And an exclamation mark after Dead. Then, there are semicolons, rather than commas, after "These laid the world away;" and "Sweet wine of youth;". Thus, the whole thing reads, in my 1932 Complete Poems

Blow out, you bugles, over the rich Dead!

There's none of these so lonely and poor of old,

But, dying, has made us rarer gifts than gold.

These laid the world away; poured out the red

Sweet wine of youth; gave up the years to be

Of work and joy, and that unhoped serene,

That men call age; and those who would have been,

Their sons, they gave, their immortality.

Many thanks for another excellent read. KJP1 (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The punctuation seems to vary from one source to the next, but we can go with yours (anything for a quiet life!). Glad you enjoyed it—I enjoyed writing it; it certainly has an interesting cast of characters! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil

I do like these articles, and find them very moving. Have read from top to end in the last few hours. Support. Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Thank you very much for your support. Very much obliged. And I'm glad you're enjoying the series (there aren't many left!). I went through your edits and tweaked a few things and I'm afraid I undid a couple of minor things. Happy to talk about those if there's anything you feel strongly about. Thanks again! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.