Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norwich 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2017 [1].

Norwich War Memorial

edit
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The next in my series on war memorials by Sir Edwin Lutyens for those following along at home, this number six, and about halfway through the English memorials with FA potential. The previous two were both in York; this one is a long way further south and slightly further east. Sadly neglected in the early 21st century, it has since been restored to its full glory. Although not a large memorial dominating its surroundings, it's nonetheless quite an impressive one in my opinion. It was unveiled by a disabled ex-serviceman; that the committee had no trouble finding a wounded soldier for the duty speaks to the profound effect the First World War had on Norwich, which of course is a microcosm of Britain as whole.

This is a relatively short but comprehensive article, and as ever, all feedback is gratefully received. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll support this shortly. Few small things....
  • Lead: Would prefer abandoned to "abortive".
  • Makes no odds to me, so done.
  • Norwich's war dead and by 1926 - comma or punctuation of some sort needed (imo)
  • Done.
  • an empty tomb (cenotaph) - remove the cenotaph clarifier - mentioned and linked already above
  • I think this is worthwhile as cenotaph isn't necessarily a widely understood term and Norwich's doesn't resemble Lutyens' other cenotaphs (which tend to be raised high on pylons, and many people think the pylon itself is [part of] the cenotaph). It's actually the reason I had the link there rather than on the first mention. I'm open to better ways of doing this if you can think of any.
  • Never heard of a flambeaux before, link pls. Also, it is how it sounds, no need to say "at either end can burn gas to emit a flame" - works from burning gas or sumfink.
  • and the City Hall in 1938. In 2004... Can you rephrase so the two years are not placed so close together.
  • Yep.
  • Gone.
Thanks very much Ceoil! Happy to talk some more about cenotaphs and flambeaux if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have only ready half the article so far, but cenotaphs are in my area of interest, if you have more. Flambeaux is my new favourite word. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • which was initially deployed - I have a real problem with the way 'initially' is used on Wikipedia, though more on music articles than in this instance. 'Originally', or 'at first'
Done.
  • Norwich, the county town - The city of?
  • Sorry, I don't follow. You're suggesting "the city of Norwhich, the..."? Or something else?
Say "the city (or town) of Norwich" rather than Norwich, the county town Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can add "the city" if you think it would help, but I wanted to keep the county town link to make clear the relationship between Norfolk and Norwich. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approximately 33,000 men served overseas with the Norfolks, though many more joined other regiments. Norfolk men presumably, rather than men in general
  • Indeed.
  • Thousands of war memorials were built across Britain after the war.
  • Sorry, not sure what you're suggesting here either.
Ok. In the aftermath of the war and its unprecedented casualties is fine on 2nd reading. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London - In rather than on? maybe in Whitehall, London, though yes that's an Americanism.
    • Well, Whitehall's the street and the Cenotaph is in the middle of it so "on" seems appropriate.
Ok. But can you say Whitehall street or road, as I assumed it was an area. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's just called "Whitehall" (I know, that's Londoners for you!); Does linking it help? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A link perfectly solves. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are very picky, yes. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running out of things to say, a good sign, so Support from me. This a very fine, worthy and interesting article. Well done Harry.
Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! If cenotaphs are your thing, you'll like what I have in store next. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support comments by auntieruth
  • almost ready to support.
  • question on this sentence Withers was selected at random from among the city's ex-servicemen who were natives of Norwich, had enlisted prior to the implementation of conscription in 1916, had served overseas, and had been permanently disabled as a result of their service I think I understand it. He was selected from a pool of the exservicemen who had all been natives had enlisted prior to conscription, and had...yadayada....? I had to read it several times though. auntieruth (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOSCAP violations. Also the total cost was £2,700 (1927); it'd be nice to have a conversion to modern value. Other than that I think it looks ok. --John (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
moscap violations? are you referring to the caps of the on the inscription? ....?auntieruth (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it either. Wot. Ceoil (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to guess that the issues are
* "The Royal British Legion " should be "the Royal British Legion";
* " Its place in the Memorial garden " > " Its place in the memorial garden ";
* " between the new City Hall and the castle." > "new city hall";
* "(on the Stone itself)" > "stone";
* "the Guildhall " > "guildhall".
NB "Market Place" is presumably the proper street name, as opposed to "a market place". Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Market Place is indeed the street name. RBL cap the "t" but I've de-capped it anyway, likewise memorial garden. City Hall is a proper noun (it's the name of the building), as are Stone of Remembrance and Guildhall. But I think John's issue is with the inscriptions. Still, the inscriptions are in allcaps on the memorial itself, and they're quoted in allcaps in every single one of the sources (some inline like I've done, some as a blockquote). Personally I think it would be silly to make Wikipedia the sole exception, and sticking to the sources is a higher priority—the MoS is, after all, supposed to be a guide and no guide can cover every possible scenario. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be pedantic Market Place is not the street name, it is the name of the square in which the market is located. It is a proper noun though, as is Guildhall, City Hall etc Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, I still think that "on the Stone itself" should be lower case - the "Stone of Remembrance" is a proper noun, but "the stone" isn't - for comparison, one would say "in Norwich Castle", but "in the castle". MOS:INSTITUTIONS, part of WP:Capital, would seem to prefer "the guildhall"/"the city hall" or "the Norwich Guildhall"/"the Norwich City Hall"... I don't have a strong opinion on the inscription issue, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re inscription, if it is similar to proclamations, the instructions here do say not to capitalize it. And since the opposer left no instructions, what can we do?
I think if a building is named the Guildhall, it should be in cap. If it's called Fort Knox, our Guildhall, that would be incorrect. Go to the guildhall building, and turn left, not caps. Go to the Guildhall and turn left. yes. auntieruth (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong feelings about Stone, so I've decapped it. I believe a strict reading of the MoS would disallow the use of allcaps for the inscription, but the MoS is a guide (the tag at the top says best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply) and I believe this is a small and reasonable exception where following the sources is preferable to following the letter of the MoS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the caps, and I take your point on the inscriptions. What did you think about my other point on the currency conversion? John (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, my oppose still stands. I tried to see how this could be a valid exception to the MoS but it just isn't. MoS says not to do the ALLCAPS thing and MoS compliance is a FA criterion. --John (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your oppose but obviously I disagree with it. The MoS is guidance, not scripture, as it says itself. It would be impossible to write a style guide for every set of circumstances and every article. In this case I'm following the style used by the sources and I don't think the article would be improved by following the letter of the MoS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I reviewed at A Class and was impressed by the piece then. A further reading, with the FA criteria in mind, confirms that for me this fulfils the FA requirements. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Sources look good.
  • Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment: As John has opposed on an MoS issue, I'd like to hear a few thoughts from other reviewers on this, if we can't find any other way around it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • we commented above. A lot of us did. He's using the source, and this is what the source says. He left no instructions on what kinds of caps he opposes--the caps for the inscription, or the caps for the names of buildings. The caps guideline says "common sense and occasional exceptions may apply." Not sure what else we can say about this. As the editor says, the inscriptions themselves are in all caps, as if they were a proclamation, and all the sources referring to the inscriptions use all caps. I'm wondering if we could put the inscription in all caps in a box and refer to it in the text? Would that be a work around? auntieruth (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recusing from coord duties to comment on this point (I may also be able to go through the whole article this weekend), following MOS is indeed part of the FAC criteria, but MOS is, as Harry and Ruth suggest, a guideline that may occasionally be honoured in the breach. In this case I would not be opposing over the allcaps inscriptions, but I would offer a suggestion/compromise, namely to make the caps small (and without quote marks), which has been employed for inscriptions on some FA-level coin articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- lightly copyedited now; not an overly detailed article but I didn't notice any obvious omissions; structure seems logical; happy to take Nikki's image review and Ealdgyth's source review as read; my only suggestion is the one above re. inscriptions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've seen this and I'll be back later in the week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm inclined to promote this, but wondered if there was any response to either Ruth's or Ian's compromise suggestions? Given that this is a MoS issue (and I don't think we want any more disputes between FA and MoS if we can avoid it!) I just want to exhaust every avenue before we invoke IAR (which is what we would effectively be doing here, although I have no problem if that is the consensus). I also notice that there is no alt text for the images, and while it is not an outright requirement, I am very much of the view that FAs should follow best practice. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking in on how far we've got with this? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry to be late to the party, I was just browsing. There are a couple of references in the article to Norwich being a town which is incorrect. Norwich is a city. I think before promotion this should be corrected. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the delay in getting back to this. @Ian Rose: I can't see a problem with small caps, so done. @Norfolkbigfish: "City" and "town" are often used interchangeably, but I know it's a point of pride for many places so I've changed the couple of instances of Norwich being referred to as a town. @Sarastro1: Sorry to have kept you hanging around; is there anything else we need before wrapping this up? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tks Harry; actually this is the format I was thinking of, as used for inscriptions in the coin FAs I referred to: OUR GLORIOUS DEAD. It uses the "small" parameter rather than "smallcaps". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: As I mentioned above, I am going to promote this, although I am aware it is probably a technical breach of MoS. However, other than the one oppose, reviewers do not seem too concerned so I think this is justified. For what it's worth, I don't have any firm opinion either way. Any further discussion could take place on the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2017 (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/Norwich_War_Memorial/archive1&oldid=1143877319"