Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midland 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2020 [1].

Midland Railway War Memorial

edit
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a while with real life keeping me busy. I'm still busy, but I've decided it's time I moved Wikipedia and my war memorials project back up my priority list. Just bear with me if it takes me a day or two to reply! :) This particular war memorial is in the English Midlands city of Derby (barely 10 miles from where I used to live), which was largely built by the Midland Railway. The railways were the largest corporations ever seen at the turn of the 20th century, employing hundreds of thousands of people between them. The Midland alone released 23,000 men to the armed forces, 2,833 of whom never came back. Their names are listed on this grand, but sadly these days overlooked, memorial. The article passed an A-class review at MilHist just over a year ago and I think it's up to the standard required for a star but all feedback is welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Nb. I intend to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

Putting down a marker.

  • No alt text.
    • I'm ambivalent on this, as I'm not sure what alt text would add that the caption doesn't but happy to take advice.
Personally I always include alt text, but it is optional. (In my view this is a disgrace, but there you go.) So if you don't see the point, you are fine.
  • There are a couple of duplinks.
    • Sorted.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I kicked the tyres on this pretty thoroughly at ACR, so hopefully there is not a lot for me to pick at.

  • "The cenotaph is surmounted by a recumbent effigy of a soldier—covered by a coat and resting on a catafalque—and is decorated with lion heads at the corners of the catafalque" It seems odd to have the catafalque mentioned within the dashed section and its decoration outwith.
    • I've tweaked it but I don't love the new version either (I was going for concision in the lead) so open to further tweaking.
How about working up from the bottom? 'On either side of the cenotaph is the Midland's coat of arms, enclosed in a laurel wreath. The cenotaph is surmounted by a catafalque with sculpted lion heads at the corners. On the catafalque is the recumbent effigy of a soldier, covered by a coat. Lutyens anonymises the soldier by lifting him high above eye level, allowing the viewer to believe it could be somebody they knew.'?
That seems sensible. Done, with some re-wording.
  • "including Midland station" Should there be a definite article? Should it be 'Station'?
I don't agree over the "the", but it's not a big deal. Put "derby midland station" into Google: in the first 50 results there were 48 "S"s to 2 "s"s.
"The station" would be correct, but not "the Midland station" in the same sense that "the Central station" would sound odd in the case of (eg) Southampton Central. As for the lower case "s", I don't give a monkey's personally but the WP convention is set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) (where, coincidentally, a Midland station is one of the examples given).
Well, well: if there is a policy, there is a policy. (But living within walking distance of the place, I can assure you that, sadly, nearly all local readers will doubt your grasp on English grammar. Eg, note how it is spelt in two foot high letters across the front of the place.)
I can see both sides of the argument, but it applies to every station (there are nearly 3,000 on the National Rail network alone!) and I can also see the advantage of consistency! :)
  • "At the end of the war, 2,833 men from the Midland had been killed, their names listed on the war memorial." Would that be better as 'By the end of the war, 2,833 men from the Midland had been killed: their names are listed on the war memorial'?
    • If you prefer. :)
  • "many based to a greater lesser degree on" → 'many based to a greater or lesser degree on'?
    • Done.
  • "The artist Fabian Peake created a memorial there in 2018" Fabian Peake redirects to Mervyn Peake - who died in 1968.
    • I know. It's a silly redirect if you ask me but I'm guessing somebody thought it was better than a red link. I've never heard of him if I'm honest, but the Guardian piece makes him sound notable and he certainly has notable relatives.
Er, that doesn't explain why the article's link directs a reader to an entirely incorrect destination. It seems to me - I am open to persuasion - that either Fabian is notable enough to support an article, in which case he should be red linked in this article; or he isn't, in which case there shouldn't be a link.
I agree with you, but I don't have the subject knowledge or source material to draft an article. I had intended for it to be a red link, not realising it was a redirect. We could delete the redirect (in the hope that the red link would encourage somebody to write the article) or unlink it here, but I'm not sure if either leaves the reader better or worse off.
Red links are absolutely fine - my last two FAs and my current FAC all have red links. Delete the ridiculous and inappropriate redirect and we are fine.
Done. Hopefully it'll turn blue or somebody will decide he's not notable, but I agree a red link is probably more likely to encourage that.
  • "treat the metal elements of war memorials with SmartWater" I assume that you mean all war memorials? I which case 'treat the metal elements of all war memorials with SmartWater' may add clarity.
    • I don't know about all war memorials. To treat every war memorial even just in England would be quite an undertaking! It refers to war memorials in general.
As you have written it, the first clause of the final sentence comes across as really vague, but maybe that is me. Leave it be.
If you think of a more elegant form of words I'd welcome suggestions, or feel free to just be bold if you prefer.
Ah - me and my big keyboard! Referring to the source, how about 'The theft prompted an initiative to treat the metal elements of all Derbyshire war memorials with SmartWater, a product which allows metal to be identified with an ultraviolet light'?
That works. Done.

That's all I could find that I haven't already picked at. A cracking little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Gog! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My further penny's worth. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, Gog! :) 19:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unto the breach. Two text suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend, once more! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or close the wall up with our English dead. A nice piece of work. Good example of being concise while still covering everything. Supporting. But do keep your eyes open for a RS with different plan measurements to HE's. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments from Gerbis

edit

You are very right to say that this is a sadly overlooked cenotaph. This is a remarkable work and deserves that you brought it to our attention. Thank you for that. You also presented many interesting historical facts particularly around the unveiling and the involvement of the families, and I find it interesting that the names of the fallen are given without rank. With the generalities about listing and conservation area you’re going a bit overboard, imho, also the later company fusions are a bit borderline but you rescued it by referring to other memorials. All in all, with surrounding data you’re doing alright.

But you are leaving large gaps in other very important areas:

  • How did Lutyens get involved?
  • Was there a competition?
  • What did the railways want Lutyens to do, i.e. what was the brief?
  • Was this particular shape established from the outset or did the design go through stages?
  • Do preliminary drawings or models exist? They must have been produced but are they now lost?
  • "reminiscent of classical architecture" is a bit vague.

There are also quite a few factual errors. I can see that you know a fair bit about railway companies but I fear that you don’t fully understand what a cenotaph is – and that is your topic here.

Even if it incorporates a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier or another real body buried at the site, all war memorials are cenotaphs to all the people remembered but not buried at the site. This has nothing to do with their shape or a figure of a soldier being depicted. To create a cenotaph in purely abstract, architectural forms is the great achievement of Lutyens at Whitehall. Up to that moment, cenotaphs usually had some figurative element or symbol like the Christian cross if they went beyond mere inscriptions. So, if you say "Although generally described as such, the memorial is not strictly a cenotaph as the sculpture at the top is a human figure rather than an empty tomb" you’re wrong, and if you read that in Amery as your reference suggests, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

A few more things:

  • You mention a number of facts in the introduction which you simply repeat in the main text without any further detail.
    • Can you give examples? It's inevitable to a certain extent but I've tried to cut out straight repetition.
  • The second paragraph in the chapter "Architect" ("London's Cenotaph was...") is close to a tautology.
    • I've reworded it a little to make it clearer.
  • What does the small step have to do with children? I doubt that it has, but if it does you need to reference it. I'd rather expect that the stepped up area is where you place wreaths.
    • That's straight from the source (and supported by others).
  • "ecumenical shapes" – I have no idea what that’s supposed to be.
    • I thought it was fairly self-explanatory: shapes and designs that don't relate to any particular religion or sect (eg no Christian cross or Jewish star. But leave it with me and I'll think about spelling it out.
Please do. This is not clear at all. If you just put what you wrote here in reply it would already be much better.
Done.
  • "Lutyens also uses it to draw attention to the details on the pylon, connecting the beauty of the structure to the memory of the dead soldier." – no idea what you mean by that.
    • Could probably do with some rewording. Leave it with me; might need to go back to the source.
yes, please
Done.

Finally, purely for readability, I would like to see the publication year in shortened references as it makes a difference to know if you’re referring to a contemporary source of the period of construction or later publications.

Sorry this all sounds pretty ruthless but these are things I’d like to know about this memorial and you’re not saying. I think that you have done some good work here but I don’t think it’s anywhere near the required quality for a featured article. Gerbis (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The disadvantage we have with company war memorials, rather than public works, is that some of the detail you're after either wasn't recorded at the time (because nobody thought it was important) or has been lost in the intervening century, bearing in mind that the company has been amalgamated, nationalised, then broken up and privatised in that time. You'll note that I've cited works on architecture, biographies of the architect, and histories of the town and the company so it's not a lack of research. In some cases we get chapter and verse on how Lutyens was appointed; in others we get next to nothing. Lutyens was the architect of his day for war memorials and everyone wanted him but unless you had some prior connection (like a lot of the small villages he did memorials for), you had to have a healthy budget—something the major railway companies certainly had. For this one's closest sibling all we get is that they approached Lutyens because he was the "fashionable architect" and that's only because the board managed the project themselves instead of delegating it and their minutes survived. As for "cenotaph", I don't think that's a factual error. It's sourced direct to a distinguished architectural historian writing for the Arts Council of Great Britain (because Amery explicitly makes the connection to this memorial in particular, whereas others discuss it in general terms), and the literal meaning of the term is "empty tomb". Your definition is much broader, but even if we go that, this particular war memorial is not an "empty tomb" (unlike the one in London, for example, which has a coffin at the top, as opposed to an effigy). Other replies inline. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining a few things. I absolutely understand that there might not be any documentation about Lutyens' involvement and I'm certainly not accusing you of not doing enough research. You should, however, preempt questions like mine by saying from the outset that there is no documentation and no previous design stages are known. That makes it clear.
My definition of a cenotaph isn't much broader, that's what the definition of a cenotaph is: "Cenotaph. A monument to a person or persons buried elsewhere." That is the full dictionary entry in The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture by Fleming, Honour, Pevsner, 4th ed. 1994. Could you give me a quote of Amery's explanation why this is not a cenotaph in the true sense? As I said, even if there is one person buried there, it is still a cenotaph to all the others mentioned in the inscription and not buried there. A stone figure of a soldier is an effigy not a buried person.
Children: You have a source for it, that's great. Please reference it so you're safe. I still believe it's not a step but a plinth, given its height and the function of prolonging the pedestal's plinth - and one doesn't step on a plinth (n.b.: despite often being used interchangeably today, a plinth in architectural vocabulary is not the same as a pedestal but (Fleming, Honour, Pevsner again) "the projecting base of a wall or column pedestal" - Lutyens would have known that). But that's not an argument I need to have with you since you have a quotable source. I'd be curious if you could point me to the other sources that support this claim, just out of personal interest. We're looking at the 1920s when duty, discipline and decorum are the motivating factors, not a late 20th and 21st century sensibility which allows children to crawl around everywhere - and they couldn't step up in a dignified way because the step is way too high for small legs. It would be interesting if Lutyens really had an educational function for children in mind, i.e. an adult lifting up a child and pointing out names.
see also inline Gerbis (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On "cenotaph": Amery says This is not a 'cenotaph' as it is not strictly speaking an empty tomb. Going through some of the other books, Alan Borg 's War Memorials discusses the use of cenotaphs in antiquity for about half a page in the context of an empty tomb, then comes close to your definition by saying In the 20th century, and especially after the construction of the Cenotaph in London, the word has become synonymous with any memorial that was not itself an actual sepulchre; Jay Winter in Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning says a cenotaph is, literally, an empty tomb, and by announcing its presence as the tomb of no one [Whitehall's] became the tomb of all who died in the war. Neither is cited here because neither has anything to say about this particular memorial but they're both sat on my shelf and have been used for previous articles in the series (this will be something like the 17th FA in the series). The child step is taken straight from the NHLE entry, otherwise I'd have agreed with you that it's a plinth for placing wreaths etc. More in the morning. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerbis: I think I've addressed everything as best I can. I could go into more detail about ecumenicism and the "beautiful death" with Lutyens' agnosticism and the influence theosophy had on him, and his of use of classical-style architecture rather than graphic realism (the obvious contrast being the Royal Artillery Memorial) but I think that would be getting beyond the scope of the article and beyond the sources, which don't discuss it in great detail in relation to this particular memorial. If you think something's still wanting I'm happy to discuss further. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few final thoughts on this
Children: Please add a reference/link to the source in the text.
Ecumenical shapes: I think what you really want to say is that Lutyens avoided religious symbols. Your link to "Ecumenism" explains what ecumenical means, i.e. a Christian movement towards unity, but I can't see how "shapes" come into this. A key word in ecumenism is Christian - and this narrowing down to Christianity by using for example a cross is exactly what was avoided.
Classical architecture: I think this should be separated from religious symbolism. Lutyens used the architectural language of classical architecture (rather than e.g. gothic), that's one fact, and he avoided religious symbols, that's another but different fact. If you wanted to express (and I don't know if you do) that he used classical style architecture instead of religious symbols, that would need some seriously deep and solidly referenced explanation.
Graphic sculpture: what is that? Do you mean figurative sculpture as in e.g. a relief with battle scene or a mourning figure? Gerbis (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Children" is referenced, at the end of the paragraph as with almost everything except direct quotes; I don't think the claim is sufficiently extraordinary that it needs a reference right next to it. I've tweaked the prose to use the term "figurative sculpture" as you suggest. Give me a couple of days to go back to the books on classicism and ecumenicism and I'll see if I can come up with something more coherent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I haven't forgotten this. I've got a bit more I want to add from Carden-Coyne and Hussey about classicism first. I should be able to get to it this evening or tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerbis: I've been back to the sources and rewritten those few sentences. Could you take another look when you have minute? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds much better now. Gerbis (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth - Have had a go at adding alt text. The wording could probably be improved as this isn't my forte. The Source review's done (see below). KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I looked this over a year ago when it went through Milhist ACR, so don't have a lot to add. A few comments:

  • link East Midlands in the lead
    • Done.
  • in the lead, "within sight of the station" which station?
    • Clarified.
  • "within sight of the railway station" again
    • And again.
  • move to link to cenotaph to first mention
    • I know that one's a little weird. I want a link there because that's where it's directly relevant (it discusses the definition of the term, so a link to the relevant article is helpful). Would you suggest I put a link on the first mention as well, or instead?
  • was/is it used for commemorative events?
    • Other than the dedication and re-dedication mentioned, I haven't found anything in the sources

That's all I could find to nitpick about. I'll add that I don't find the oppose convincing, particularly given Harry's response regarding the specifics. No sources have been provided for the assertions made, and it is not surprising that the information about the planning process for the memorial is sparse. That is also the case with memorials in Australia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Much obliged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Believe I've addressed everything. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by WereSpielChequers

edit

Hi Harry, good to see you around again. Nicely written. Re Gerbis's points, if such things can be sourced then it would be good to add them, but if they can't be sourced then no matter. What I think could be done is some more detailed photos/crops of the unknown soldier, the lions and the wreath as mentioned in the text. Crops of File:Midland Railway War Memorial, Derby 10 (cropped).jpg might do the trick. A photo of the plaques would also be worthwhile, but the ones I zoomed in on had insufficient detail. ϢereSpielChequers 19:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, WSC. You're right, some more detailed photos would be handy. I struggled with which photos to include in the article when I was writing it as, frankly, none of them are brilliant and there's limited room. Most of them are mine but I took them with a fairly basic camera seven years ago. These days even a decent smartphone would take better pictures. Perhaps Gog the Mild might be able to take some better pics if he's passing by any time soon? As for the extra details, I got in touch with the Midland Railway Study Centre; they weren't able to shed any more light, though they did point me to The National Archives. They have some documents relating to the Midland but it's not clear if there's anything relevant in there. I've put in a request to see if there's anything about Lutyens or the memorial but the documents aren't digitised and TNA's find and copy service is out of action until further notice because of the Coronavirus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and snap some of the detail next time I am down that way. I can't vouch for their quality though. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the Geograph but they don't have anything better than the ones already imported. I assume the National Archives check is connected with the trip to Kew that I've already promised you? In any event, can't see that happening for a while now. ϢereSpielChequers 14:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeedy. TNA is closed to the public for the foreseeable future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by Zawed

edit

A nice tidy article, and certainly worth being FA. Just one comment really:

That's good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

@Gerbis: what are your current thoughts on this? And did we get a source review and I'm just being blind and not seeing it? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see above Gerbis (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

Hi Michell, I hope I'm not disturbing this nomination's streak here. Just wanna see if I can help before it can be promoted.

  • of a conservation area and a grade II* listed building Is it normal to have an asterisk here?
    • Normal isn't quite the right word. There are hundreds of thousands of grade II listed buildings in England and Wales, only a few thousand grade II*. I have made a slightly more specific link that hopefully clarifies things for any reader who wants to know more about that specific grade. Hope that answers that part of your query. ϢereSpielChequers 06:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's an official designation (pronounced two-star).
  • The Midland had its headquarters in Derby I might not be a native English-speaker but "the Midland" sounds a little bit odd to me. Why not drop the article or is there a good reason why not?
    • It is a little unusual but it's how the company was generally known.
  • almost 23,000 men for war service, a loss of 30 percent of its workforce I mayn't be British but shouldn't it be "per cent"?
    • Possibly. I don't care one way or the other, so done.
  • companies began employing women on a large scale for the first time I believe a hyphen between "large" and "scale" is needed.
    • No, not in this context. Only when the two words form a compound adjective.
  • who had joined the armed forces by that date. Within a week of the United Kingdom declaring war on Germany Maybe pipe Germany to the German Empire?
    • That would be overlinking and an Easter egg.
      • Hm, that's look something new to me and I'm always asking to nominators to link former countries. I believe former countries should be linked even the most common country's pre-successor should be linked because in those years sometimes centuries everything within has changed. By MOS:OVERLINK only everyday words or major topics shouldn't be linked. I don't believe most people would know that before Nazi Germany or even beyond the Weimar Republic there was a German Empire and should be linked at first mention.
        • But "Germany" is a widely understood term. The historical entities that made up Germany are not relevant to this article. And it's still an Easter egg so doing as you ask would actually be against the FA criteria. I would expect a link on the word "Germany" to go to Germany, not to German Empire or anywhere else.
          • I'll give you a point the current Germany is indeed widely known. But the German Empire is kinda relevant here (at least for me). At the time the UK declared war on Germany, Germany was much bigger than modern-day Germany. People like youths or even younger are not interested in WWI (while her sister WWII got the bigger spot) and mostly don't know the history in the background. Okay yeah sure the German Empire is more common than let's say the Natalia Republic. If you don't like the name "German Empire" then you still could change it to Imperial Germany? By MOS:OVERLINK "However, try to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others" I believe that the German Empire is one of those less known (former) countries which many people would surprise these days.
            • But it would still be an Easter egg, and more detail than we need in an article about a monument in Derby.
  • designing country houses for wealthy clients and later built much of New Delhi Because this is a FAC I believe you should add "in India" to clarify all readers where it happened.
    • I believe most people know where New Delhi is.
  • greater or lesser degree on Lutyens' design Not "Lutyens's"?
    • No. Per the MoS.
        • May I ask you where in MOS 'cause I couldn't find it?
        • Come to think if it, I've been away for a while and can't remember where I read it, but "Lutyens'" appears in 16 (I think) previous FAs and has never been challenged.
          • In the apostrophe's article states "Many respected authorities recommend that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation. Examples include Oxford University Press, the Modern Language Association, the BBC and The Economist.[24] Such authorities demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Tony Adams's friend; my boss's job; the US's economy. Rules that modify or extend the standard principle have included the following: If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian, Yahoo! Style Guide, and The American Heritage Book of English Usage. Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; or Achilles' heel if that is how the pronunciation is intended." which is vague; everyone can say it's awkward or difficult to say. (Which isn't in my view.) Of course this isn't a MOS guideline and as far as I know there is no one.
            • I think I'll keep it how it is. OF those examples, it's probably closer to "Achiles'" than any other.
  • the memorial consists of a 10 m (32 ft 10 in) high cenotaph with rounded sides in the centre of a 2 m (6 ft 7 in) high screen wall Those units should be written fully 'cause this is a compound adjective.
  • Done.
    • You forgot the second compound adjective.
      • Done.
  • 7 metres (23 ft) by 3 m (9 ft 10 in) deep I believe "metre" here should be abbreviated.
    • Not done, but made consistent with the preceding measurement.
      • Why not? By MOS:UNITNAMES "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use" I always look at how big the article is, if it has more than 30,000 bytes than I always count 3 short full written units like metres and feet. If it's bellow that number then I assume 2 short full written units are enough; this is also the third fully mentioned metre here.
        • Mainly because I dislike abbreviations in formal prose. But I've changed the second set to use abbreviations.
  • The memorial was built by J Parnell and Son Ltd and cost £10,309 (1921) Okay I have here a couple of questions. First who/what is J Parnell and shan't he/it has a full stop after the "J"? Second is there a link for both person and company? As last can you link the British pound here?
    • It's the name of a company and it doesn't have a Wikipedia article. I don't believe the full stop is necessary. Linking GBP would be overlinking.
  • on 15 December 1921 while the Right Reverend Edwyn Hoskyns Excuse me? Shouldn't the article be capitalised?
    • I don't know what you mean, but the formatting is correct as-is.
      • The title's article uses "The Right Reverend", shouldn't the article here be capitalised?
        • No. Not in the middle of a sentence. I even went and double-checked and The Reverend#Usage says When the style is used within a sentence, the is correctly in lower-case.
  • Hmm, sounds legit.
  • wishing to visit the memorial after its unveiling.[19][14] Maybe re-oder the refs here?
    • Done.
  • part of a national collection of Lutyens' war memorials Not Lutyens's?
    • No, as above.
  • The memorial was damaged in 2010 when several of the bronze plaques This event is relatively new, so is there at least a months?
    • I think that would be recentism.
      • It is more recent than the rest of the article; both the lead and the body don't give us a month. Is there a policy here on Wikipedia which mentions exceptions for months or days?
        • The date is not relevant to the event, and the exact date of the rededication is given two sentences later.
  • The plaques were restored by Network Rail and the Railway Heritage Trust at a cost of £18,000 Do we have links for those organisations?
    • NR is linked above; the RHT doesn't have an article.
  • and hundreds more employees had volunteered Not sure why but shouldn't we have here an "of" after "hundreds"?
    • That would be ungrammatical.
  • on the pylon by making the viewer look up Merge "look" and "up".
    • No. "Lookup" is a completely different term.
  • I also do not think BBC News and Historic England should be repeatedly linked; looks to me as overlinked.
    • This is fine in the references section because each reference should stand on its own.
  • Ref 27 is a PDF without a page number but I thought we always should use pages in PDFs?
    • It's five pages, of which two are full-page images. Well within a reasonable range for verifiability.
  • Why are the metric units here primary instead of imperial? By WP:METRIC "UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in" I don't believe back in the day the memorial was drawn up in metric units. The UK needed another 50 years before she realised she has to adopt metric units as co-official units.
    • Because they're sourced to Historic England (the government body responsible for documenting and protecting historic structures), who give them in metric.
  • I'm not really seeing how that's legit but I'll give it a pass.
  • protection from demolition or modification; grade II* is reserved for "particularly important buildings of more than special interest" and is applied to about 5.5% of listings By MOS:PERCENT we only should use the symbol per cent at scientific/​technical articles, and in tables and infoboxes which does not look like this sentence is in.
    • Done.
  • The memorial stands on Midland Road, within sight of Midland station Isn't "stations" here part of a proper noun? And add here "Derby" too.
  • The memorial was designated a grade II* listed building in 1977 No day and month are mentioned while the infobox says so; looks like OR to me. I also believe the lead also needs the date of this sentence.
    • If that looks like OR to you then you don't know what OR is. The date is not important in the history of the memorial, it's just the date of a bureaucratic decision. It takes less than 10 seconds to verify it from the link immediately below. Clearly not OR.
      • Maybe the date isn't important the history of the memorial but it's odd to see the detailed date in the infobox and not in the body nor lead (but that's not important right now). I've found this at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." it states summarising I don't see a summarise in the infobox from the body about this date. And probably after FAC it would be changed by someone who doesn't know (or follow) the FAC progress but still know this policy or just add it because it's odd to look at in their opinion. Especially at TFA; I don't see the point here to not adding the date but could me of course. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added the date to the prose. Not because I think it's an improvement but because I don't think it's worth arguing about.
  • I might be new here (in this topic) but may I ask you why we use "Reference no.: 1228742" in the infobox? It's also only mentioned in the infobox which is once again OR to me.
    • The entry number on an official government list, linked to its entry on that list, where the entry number is given right at the top, is OR? Are you winding me up?
      • I'm not saying it is OR, I only asked you 'cause I'm new in military memorials you know.
  • Can you also convert the Roman letters in this sentence "Close-up of the dates inscribed on the memorial" in one of your images? (I do not believe everyone knows especially youths what the year is.)
    • Done.
  • commemorated on the LNWR's war memorial outside Euston station in London Stations is not a proper noun here?
    • No. As above.
  • The artist Fabian Peake created a memorial there in 2018 2018, that's only 1–2 years ago? I wonder when exactly I'm now really curious when exactly it happens?
    • I'll give you that. It does say "on the centenary of the armistice", but I suppose not everyone immediately thinks of 11 November.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some done. Replies inline for others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi HJ I have counter-replied your responses and had my check-up and found some more comments for you (don't worry I only make a review and a check-up not more). Be safe and cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

After family war memorials, I find company memorials to be the most moving memorials of the world wars: they're a stark reminder that most of the military personnel who fought in these wars were civilians who were mourned by their colleagues afterwards. I'd like to offer the following comments, all on labour issues:

  • "Around a third of the company's workforce left to fight" - given that a fair few (the majority?) would have been conscripted, I'm not sure about "left to fight" here given this implies they joined the military voluntarily
  • "also gave up large numbers of their employees for military service" - were the workers the company's to allocate to the military? (I'm not sure how labour was managed in the British war economy, but it seems unlikely that railroad companies had much say here)
  • "The Midland released almost 23,000 men for war service" - as above, did the company actually have a say over whether its workers who were classed as non-essential joined the military or were conscripted? Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, thanks for having a look. The railways were considered essential to the British war effort so although they employed huge numbers of people, many of the employees weren't liable to conscription. Many of those who left did so voluntarily pre-conscription. In fact, the Midland decreed that employees intending to join the forces had to get permission from management in order to stem the loss of skilled workers. I take your middle point though, and I've rephrased slightly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note (again)

edit
Ealdgyth - Happy to pick up the Source review, it's got more than enough Supports. I could also try writing the alt text, if Harry's not available and that's the only thing standing in the way of promotion. The Source review will be done by this afternoon. KJP1 (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, if you think you could write some alt text that would be useful, that would be amazing. It's something I struggle with as I've heard feedback from users of screen readers that the alt text written by Wikipedians can be less than useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
Bibliography
  • Boorman, Derek (1988). At the Going Down of the Sun: British First World War Memorials - is he this Derek Boorman? In which case you could authorlink him, as you've done with Granet/Hussey/Pevsner. Although I have an odd feeling I've asked this question before?
  • I don't know is the honest answer. The notes on the dust jacket of At The Going Down of the Sun don't quite match and make no mention of him being a lieutenant general. It's possible, but I wouldn't want to link him without being certain.
  • Pevsner, Nikolaus; Hartwell, Clare; Williamson, Elizabeth Ann (2016). Derbyshire - being uber-picky, Williamson doesn't have her middle name, Ann, on the front cover or the title page of my copy. And the publisher location should be New Haven and London.
  • The middle name doesn't add anything, so gone. As for publisher locations, surely we just use the headquarters locations? Otherwise the location field would be huge for a book by OUP, for example.
  • Skelton, Tim; Gliddon, Gerald (2008). Lutyens and the Great War - should this appear in the Citations, 10 & 13, as Skelton & Gliddon, as per Simmons & Biddle, Cite 5?
  • I've always cited it as just Skelton because the research is his; Gliddon just wrote the introduction.
Citations
  • Cite 24 - It might help readers if the title of the memorial could be included in the citation, as it is in Cites 6 & 9. Oddly, it is just titled "War memorial", but I'd probably call it "War Memorial Euston Square", as per the address.
  • Done.
  • The on-line sources all work and all support the text.
  • I've checked the off-line sources I have, Amery, Hussey, Pevsner, and they're used appropriately. Fully confident, given the pedigree, that the ones I don't have will also support the text.

The above are all minor nitpicks. The Sourcing is fine. KJP1 (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kevin! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 26 April 2020 (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/Midland_Railway_War_Memorial/archive1&oldid=954158578"