Talk:The Cenotaph/GA1

GA Review

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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Starting first read-through now. Comments to follow. Tim riley talk 20:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Review

This article seems to me already of FA standard, and I don't foresee any problem whatever in elevating it to GA before you take it to FAC. A handful of drafting points and one factual query:

• Background

• We have the BrE "adviser" on one line followed by the AmE "advisor" on the next. Better stick to the former.
• "The word cenotaph derives from the Greek term kenotaphion" – you translate the Greek word in the lead, but it would be as well, I think, to do so again in the main body of the text.

• Origins: the temporary Cenotaph

• "Lloyd George and the French president" – later on you mention the German president and add his name. I think that's a good idea, and I suggest you name the French president here. (It was Raymond Poincaré, I see from the archives.)
• While looking in the archives for the name of the French president I noticed that the press reports seem to indicate that although Poincaré unquestionably bore a wreath and laid it at 11 a.m., Lloyd George's and the King's wreaths were placed on the Cenotaph beforehand. Lloyd George and most of the cabinet watched from the steps of the Home Office. I see no suggestion in the press reports that a way had to be cleared. I think this sentence could perhaps be revisited.

• Unveiling

• "…the cortege continued it journey—His Majesty, the other royals, Lloyd George, and the archbishop following…" – two things here: I imagine "it" must be a typo for "its", and I rather think MoS purists will purse a lip or two at "His Majesty" instead of "the king" (though personally I think it reads beautifully).

• Later history

• using steam to and a poultice to remove dirt" – something not right here: should the "to" be a different word?

• Remembrance services

• As you've mentioned the Archbishop of Canterbury earlier, readers may assume the current Archbishop leads the service, and so perhaps it might be as well to mention that it is led by the Bishop of London.
• "The monarch and the prime minister then lay wreaths at the cenotaph" – in recent years the Queen has watched from a balcony while the Prince of Wales has laid her wreath. You may need to fudge this sentence a bit.
• "Until the second World War" – usual to capitalise all three nouns in the phrase.

Those are my few quibbles. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 08:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for casting a thorough eye over it, Tim. These are exactly the sort of things I was hoping to catch before FAC rather than during it. I believe I've addressed all but two points: I'm not sure the Bishop of London's role is important enough to the Cenotaph; I've tried to keep the focus on the monument because the annual service has its own article. I'm travelling this week so can't consult my books, but the way being cleared comes straight from one of the cited sources (Richardson, I think). I'll have to check on that when I'm home at the weekend. As for His Majesty, I thought some might not like it but I think it reads better than repetition of "the king". Thanks again, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Fine as to omitting mention of the Bishop of London, and very fine indeed with "His Majesty" (though the best of British luck with it at FAC!), but I'm sufficiently concerned about what looks like dodgy info that (i) LG laid a wreath at the same time as Poincaré did, and (ii) that they had to have the way cleared for them, that I don't think I can in conscience promote the article till this is adequately addressed. (I don't, let me add, mind being proved wrong, but in the face of a pile of press reports to the contrary, I shall want pretty convincing proof.) As this is the only outstanding point I don't propose to put the review on formal hold − unless you wish it − and will just wait till the weekend when you have access to your shelves. − Tim riley talk 18:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine with me. I wasn't planning to do anything until I'm back at a proper keyboard anyway! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tim, quoth Lloyd "It was only with enormous difficulty the police were able to clear a space for the carriage of the French president and Lloyd George so they could lay wreaths at the Cenotaph". He goes on in quite some detail about the gathered crowd and the policing of it. Gregory says "the king and queen sent a wreath to be placed at the foot of the Cenotaph", then has a lengthy excerpt from the Daily Express which includes "the mounted police, with great skill and courtesy, diverted the crowd from the main road to the footpaths" and goes on to talk about LG laying a wreath (though doesn't mention the French president). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

That confirms my doubts about what the article currently says: "it took the intervention of the police to create space for Lloyd George and the French president, Raymond Poincaré, to lay a wreath at 11 am" The police may have had to clear the way for LG to lay his wreath, but he had already laid it and was standing on the Home Office steps before Poincaré arrived at 11.00 to lay his. They didn't arrive together and lay a single wreath. Tim riley talk 08:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

How do you feel about this amendment? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely fine, if you add the missing indefinite article in "Lloyd George to lay wreath". I'm happy to promote to GA now, and I hope I may see the article at FAC. If you take it there please ping me. Tim riley talk 19:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

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.