Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Great Western Railway War Memorial/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 December 2021 [1].

Great Western Railway War Memorial

edit
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of two lose series that have been on my back burner for a while (railway company war memorials and Charles Sargeant Jagger's war memorials). It follows on from my previous nominations of Jagger's works, the Royal Artillery Memorial and Portsmouth War Memorial. I've been working on it on and off for a couple of years but only recently got round to giving it a full overhaul when I had a bit of time on my hands and wanted a project I could complete without having to buy any more books (I already have a bookcase full of material on war memorials!). It's not a very long article becuase the subject seems to have been overlooked in favour of larger, outdoor works, but I hope the bibliography shows that that is not for want of research, and I think it contains everything that can be expected. As always, I'm eager to hear any constructive criticism. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Thryduulf

edit
  • Such was the size of the crowd that the GWR built viewing stands across two platforms and the tracks in between them. This feels too detailed for the lead and is also contradicted by the railway company built a stand on platforms and 2 and 3, and moved wagons into the tracks between the platforms in the history section. Were the stands built across the tracks or not?
    • I think it's relevant to the lead that there was such a crowd that accommodations had to be made. I've clarified in the body that there were stands on the wagons and it was one continuous crowd.
  • The GWR was also responsible for running a train to remove the Austrian ambassador. More detail please - where was he being removed from and to? Why were they being removed? Why was a special train needed, and why the GWR? Some of this would probably be better provided by a link to where this information is elsewhere, if it's anywhere, an offline reference that may or may not include this information is not helpful in this case.
    • I don't think any more detail would be relevant here. The aim here is to provide a brief overview of the GWR's activities in the war as background to the memorial. We don't have an article on the Great Western Railway in the First World War or even anything similar, and the coverage of WWI in the main GWR article is two sentences so we don't have anywhere useful we can point readers.
      • I see your point, but the current sentence jars me out of the narrative with a "wait, what!?". As Extraordinary Wit suggests, toning down the language and adding a destination will resolve that. If you don't want to do that then remove it all together. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the GWR ran ambulance trains and ... and ... too many "and"s.
    • Reworded.
  • the modern successor to the GWR suggest linking this to Great Western Railway (train operating company)
    • Not sure this is helpful or necessary; the casual reader doesn't need to know about the modern TOC to understand the article, and introducing a second GWR is likely to cause confusion.
  • but it explicitly include in the grade I listing change to "but it is explicitly included..." Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Extraordinary Writ

edit

Looks to be in good shape. A few nitpicks below:

  • Comissioning – typo
    • Fixed.
  • The GWR considered several schemes... – this sentence would probably flow a bit better if you split it into two.
    • Done.
  • During the Covid-19 pandemic – our article has COVID in all caps (and I would too), although that's certainly not a hill I'm going to die on.
    • Not the hill I'd choose to die on either. I think I prefer it in sentence case because it's not an acronym where each letter corresponds to a word so it feels a bit SHOUTY, but if there's a consensus or a MoS subsection that says I'm wrong I'll concede the point.
  • Gloucesterhsire – typo
    • Fixed.
  • a train to remove the Austrian ambassador – "remove" to me connotes some sort of involuntary expulsion, which (to Thryduulf's point above) really makes the reader curious. I see the source uses "return"; perhaps something like "a train to transport the Austrian ambassador back to ____" would be best.
    • I've removed this. See my response to Chris above for rationale.
  • its ships – perhaps link Great Western Railway ships?
    • Might be helpful. Done.

More soon. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ, thanks for your comments. I'm back at work and on early earlies for the next couple of days so it might take me a day or two to act on any further comments. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered using Template:Inflation to auto-convert sums like £5,625 to their present values?
    • I've considered it. I just don't think the output is meaningful or useful. Maybe not apples and oranges, but it feels a bit like comparing apples and pears when you consider the changes in purchasing power over the course of a century.
  • The GWR chose Jagger to design... – I'm a bit confused by this sentence. What was Blomfield recommending Jagger for? How (if at all) was "the government" connected to the memorial?
    • Clarified.
  • To give such a large crowd... – this sentence is long and complex; it might be more readable if you split it up. The same is true for the following sentence (The ceremony began....
    • I've broken these up a bit.
  • MOS:TIME seems to insist that times be spaced, so "10:45 am" and not "10:45am"
    • We can probably dispense with the "am" and leave it in 24-hour format.
  • Several of your footnotes cite Gibbins, but the name used in the bibliography is Gittins.
    • Fixed.

That's about all I have for you. Sincere apologies for the delay: time just got away from me! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ no apology necessary, though it took me a few days to get back to you! Thank you for your attention to detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Good work, as always: there wasn't much to nitpick here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

edit

A railway I remember my boyfriend mentioned, made an Oooo sound when seeing this FAC. Here we go.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
=====Lead and infobox=====
  • "who were killed in the conflict." Link World War I in "the conflict".
    • I think that would be an Easter egg and not particularly helpful to the reader. It's not necessary to link every topic solely because the article exists.
      • Oh God sorry for this bit. I think this point was a mistake.
  • Link Archbishop of Canterbury.
    • This one is helpful. Done.
  • "British Army's postal service"-- link either History of the British Army postal service#The Volunteer Movement and formation of Army Post Office Corps (1868–82).
    • I don't think this is necessary in the lead.
  • "Covid-19" must be capitalized.
    • Must? Do you have a source or a MoS link for "must"? I'm going to capitalise it, but because most of the style guides I've found online advocate "COVID" rather than "Covid".
      • Yeah there's no particular MOS for that, however the title case version is a sort of colloquial version. Most formal sources use "COVID-19", even if there are formal sources that use title case the capitalised is the most encouraged.
  • Infobox looks good.
Background
  • Link History of rail transport in Great Britain in "Britain's largest railway company", per the lead of Great Western Railway article.
    • That would be an Easter egg again, and contrary to the MoS (and thus the featured article criteria)
  • Link ambulance train.
    • That one might be helpful. Done.
  • "As well as manpower, the GWR gave up the majority of its ships for military use." I'd suggest moving the "as well as manpower" to the end of the sentence, as putting it in the front makes it confusing; putting it in the end I think makes it more straightforward.
    • The previous sentence discusses manpower, which is why this one begins the way it does.
  • "Thomas Tait"-- add the "S." and link Thomas S. Tait.
    • Done.
  • Link Royal Artillery Memorial and Realism (arts) in the image caption.
    • Done for the RA memorial. Always nice when I can cross-reference another of my FAs. "Realism" I feel is plain enough English that a link isn't necessary.
      • Reasonable objection to the latter. And I mean, who doesn't like cross-referencing another of their FAs? (Not saying I have an FA but I guess I'd love to cross-reference)
Commisionning
  • "The Great Western established a war memorial committee"-- is this referring to the GWR? If so it must be referred to as "The GWR" for consistency.
    • From the context, it couldn't possibly be referring to anything else, and we don't have to be repetitive in the name of consistency.
      • I disagree. At the Background sec, it is already abbreviated as GWR, so readers expect for it to be continuously referred to as GWR. If all of a sudden there's the word "Great Western" there might be two possibilities: either this is GWR, or another Great Western. There shouldn't be that type of confusion. As far as I see, this shouldn't count as repetition.
        • It's common practice, when writing about historical railway companies, to drop "Railway" from the company name when the context is clear. cf. Midland Railway War Memorial, where "Midland" is used extensively in preference to "MR". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, not exactly. One thing I'd like to note from the Midland memorial article is that the abbreviation is not given, and that it has been chosen for the article to only refer to the subject as Midland Railway. That article is consistent in referral. But here, because an abbreviation is already given, it should be referred to with that abbreviation throughout. GeraldWL 01:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no requirement to refer to something by an abbreviation every time it's mentioned simply because the abbreviation is introduced in the beginning. From the context, "Great Western" couldn't mean anything else. Look at Great Western. From the context, we're clearly not talking about mountains in Sri Lanka or the USA, or towns in Australia. Most of the other entities on that page are either named after the railway company or created long after it. As I said, it's very common practice to drop "railway" from the name of a railway company once it's been established which company we're talking about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think it's a "It couldn't mean anything else, so it's fine if we just use Great Western" issue. MOS:ABBR has stated explicitly, "Maintaining a consistent abbreviation style will allow Wikipedia to be read, written, edited, and navigated more easily by readers and editors alike. The style should always be consistent within a page." Why putting the GWR abbreviation when it's gonna be used here anyway? It just looks weird for me that other places use "GWR" but here it's "Great Western". It's almost as if you could be suggesting there's another kind of Great Western. I think changing that to GWR can help make the article tidier, in a way. GeraldWL 01:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Midnight update: Although at this point, if you still disagree with this point it's totally fine; it doesn't harm the article to a degree and I'll let it pass. GeraldWL 16:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the approach to Paddington"-- Paddington station? If so it must be a "London Paddington station" and link.
    • It couldn't really be anything else, but I added "station" just to be sure.
  • "The railway company authorised a budget of £5,625"-- link £.
Design
  • "The GWR began commemorations for its war dead"-- is "war dead" an actual phrase? Does it mean casualties? If so, I'd prefer to change it to "war casualties".
    • Yes, it's an actual phrase, and commonly used in such contexts.
      • Got it, apologies ESL guy here.
  • Unlink Thomas S Tait here; it should be at the background section.
    • Done.
  • "The second inscription was added after the Second World War"-- link Second World War.
    • That would be overlinking; most readers know what WWII is.
  • "20th-century British art"-- link 20th-century art and British art.
    • Also overlinking.
History
References
  • Should it be Citations first, then Bibliography? Because almost all articles I've seen using this style puts Citations first. But if it's normal then no problem.
    • It's the format used in almost all my 31 FAs and it's not normally a problem.
  • I think the works/publishers should be linked per consistency with ref22, 12, and 30; it'll be weird if one ref is linked but the other isn't.
    • I used to link publishers and people objected to that. Now I tend not to bother. Refs 12 and 22 are generated by templates so there's not much I can do about those; 23 and 30 the work is linked (mainly because it's relevant to the subject and not necessarily well known) but not the publisher. I think that's as consistent as I can be unless I don't link anything.
      • Understandable. Personally I've linked to publishers for ages and people have never objected to that. But it does no harm, so I'll let that pass.


Other than that, nice article. Comprehensive and detailed, using RS-es. If my comments are resolved, I'll support this. GeraldWL 02:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I haven't been able to enact all your suggestion for reasons given above, but thank you for taking the time to read the article and leave a review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the responses! I've responded to them back; you would want to see those in the Commissioning part. GeraldWL 05:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: replies inline above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And with all that resolved, I'm happy to support this article. GeraldWL 01:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • "on a polished granite plinth and Portland stone surround": I read this to mean that the memorial is on the surround; surely the surround is the arch within which the soldier stands?
  • "Such was the size of the crowd that the GWR built viewing stands across two platforms and the tracks in between them": Again I misread this: I took the first half of the sentence to mean that the GWR was responding to the size of the crowd that turned up. Just making it "expected size" would prevent that.
    • Done.
  • "encouraging people to write to a letter": looks like editing debris?
    • Fixed.
  • I think the last sentence of the lead should make clear that this is in reference to Armistice Day.
    • Good point. Done.
  • "the railway was forced to implement controls": can we get a word or two more of explanation? Maybe "the railway was forced to limit the rate of enlistment", if that's what they did?
    • Added half a sentence; see what you think.
  • "The railway company authorised a budget of £5,625 though the completed memorial came in around £1,000 under budget": can we avoid the repetition of "budget"?
    • Tightened.
  • "a conclusion with which academics Gill Abousnnouga and David Machin concurred": you might move "with" to after "concurred" here; neither is wrong but I think the latter reads a little more fluently.

I had a quick look for newspaper articles about the dedication in 1922, and found a short piece in the Observer on newspapers.com. About the only thing it contains that you don't already have is that GWR's General Manager, F.J.C. Pole, laid a wreath on behalf of GWR's staff. If you think it's worth including and if you don't have access I can clip the article for you. Otherwise there are just the minor points listed above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Felix Pole. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Believe I've addressed all your comments, Mike. Yes please to that snippet from The Observer. It's a nice little detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly struck above; I will get you that article shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The clipping is here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thank you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good, as usual. Harry, if you don't have newspapers.com access and are interested in getting similar clippings for other memorial (or other) articles you work on, I'd be happy to clip what I can find for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Will do soon. Hog Farm Talk 18:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry I'm just now getting to this - had some crazy stuff come up over the weekend.

  • A handful of harv/sfn errors - I think you'll need to add |ref=none to King, Black, Matthews, and Pullinger, based on the citation style you're using for the others
  • Sources look reliable enough
  • Are Gibbins and Gittins suppose to be the same source? Only a Gittins in listed in the bibliography
  • "and moved to RAF Northolt in 2007 when the army unit responsible for it relocated" - not finding this detail in the cited source?

Looking good, pending the items above. Hog Farm Talk 05:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog Farm, no apology necessary. I wasn't available much over the weekend anyway. Believe I've fixed everything you mention. The old and new locations for the replica statue are both mentioned in the IWM source, but I've found another one that spells it out a bit more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from Support from KJP1

edit

Harry, two quick comments. Although not mentioned in Pevsner, I have found it in a little book I've just obtained, The Immortals: London's finest statues. It doesn't actually have much that you've not already covered but I wonder if it might be included for completeness. Where I think it may be useful is the end of your Design section, in the discussion of Jagger's wartime experiences. Here, Blundell and Hudson have: "This memorial was created by someone who 'knew whereof he spoke'. Jagger was wounded at Gallipoli in 1915, and again on the Western Front in 1918, when he was awarded the MC." See what you think. You can find the full details for the book, here, and the page=16. My other quick observation is that, although the WWII rededication is mentioned in the Design section, it's not covered in the History section. I think there should be a mention of it in the latter. Perhaps a slight rejig/trim of the wording in the former section could avoid repetition. KJP1 (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild - Gog, I’m guessing Harry’s busy IRL. If, in your view, it’s got enough Support, I don’t think my comments need stand in the way. They’re marginal. Alternatively, I could weave the Blundell in? What do you think? KJP1 (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KJP1, you are probably right about Harry. All of your points seem on the money to me. Would you mind working into the article what changes you consider would improve it? I will then check your edit and consider whether th e nomination can be closed. If Harry is not happy with anything the three of us can have a post-FAC discussion; I have always found Harry to be reasonable in these sort of situations. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, the day job is insane this time of year! It'll probably be Christmas Eve by the time I can do any substantive editing (ie not just mashing buttons from my phone!). KJP, if you can make those tweaks before then, by all means please do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have added Blundell and Hudson to the Bibliography, dropped their Jagger quote in to the Design section, slightly trimmed the WWII text in that section, added a short mention of the WWII rededication in the History section. Hope the changes meet with approval. Have read the whole thing through twice. It’s well up to HJM’s usual high standard and I’m pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Great_Western_Railway_War_Memorial/archive1&oldid=1061483713"