Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Cenotaph/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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 12 June 2022 [1].

The Cenotaph

edit
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the culmination of a project I've been working on (on and off, with quite a few digressions!) for about six years, starting with Northampton War Memorial, which passed FAC back in 2016. It documents the history of what is easily Britain's most famous war memorial, and probably one of the most famous war memorials anywhere. It was never intended to be such. It started life in wood and plaster as one of a collection of monuments for the parade to celebrate the formal end of the First World War, but it caught the imagination of a public mourning the loss of an entire generation of men in a way that nothing before or since ever has. The industrial-scale slaughter had never been seen before, and most of the dead (or what was left of them) were buried overseas. People needed somewhere to grieve, and the Cenotaph gave them that. It was rebuilt almost unchanged and in the same spot in stone, where it has stood for over a century and is still revered today.

I've largely rewritten and expanded it from the ground up over the course of a couple of years, and slowly accumulated just about every piece of literature which covers it in detail. I'm indebted to Carcharoth for his help and advice throughout the process, and to Tim riley for a very thorough GA review, and now I think it's ready for its star. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Tim riley

edit

When reviewing the article for GAN I commented that it struck me as of FA standard, and revisiting it confirms my view. The article is highly readable (nearly 7,000 words, but it didn't seem that long even at a fourth perusal, just now), in impeccable prose, comprehensive as far as I can judge, balanced, well proportioned and well and widely referenced. I don't see any aspect that requires improvement, and the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 07:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

edit

Non-expert prose review:

  • Just from loading the page, I find that the lede is quite long, with four large paragraphs. I won't oppose because of this, since I think it is still within MOS:LEDELENGTH but I do recommend that you take a look at the lede and consider removing or summarising some information, especially if other reviewers note the same concern.
    • I struggle with leads, and this was possibly a little too long. I've trimmed it by about 100 words and merged the last two paragraphs so that it all fits on my screen.
  • "...with the repatriation of the Unknown Warrior an unidentified British serviceman exhumed from France..." Place a comma after Warrior
    • Done. Good spot.
  • "The memorial met with public acclaim and has been largely praised by academics and has sometimes been compared to other famous war memorials," -> "The memorial met with public acclaim, has been largely praised by academics and has sometimes been compared to other famous war memorials" This new version replaced the first "and" with a comma.
    • Reworded.
  • Note a might need a citation.
  • Optional: MOS:NOTES says that, "Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last." This article has the long references listed first, then the short citations, which is outside the norm. Consider switching the order.
    • Thank you but I prefer it the way it is, and it's consistent with my other featured articles.
  • The infobox says the cenotaph was designated a listed building on 5 February 1970, but the article only has the year listed. The full date should be added to the article text so that this information is cited somewhere, or removed from the infobox if the date cannot be verified.
    FAC stalker - date is confirmed in the listing record, Historic England (5 February 1970). "The Cenotaph (Grade I) (1357354)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 17 April 2022. KJP1 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's easily verified, just not that important. I've added it to the body nonetheless.

Those are my thoughts after reading the article. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you for your attention to detail, and for your formatting fixes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Carcharoth

edit

Just a brief set of comments, as I have mainly been watching the excellent work being done on this article.

I think one area that might be 'missing' from the Later History section is something on how the Cenotaph features (due to its location) as part of the landscape for other ceremonial events in and around Whitehall, parliament and Westminster Abbey, and how state funerals (and ceremonial funerals) that pass the Cenotaph (usually but not always en route to Westminster Abbey) feature salutes to the Cenotaph. It may not be possible to add anything, as it is possible that no-one has commented on this, but it clearly does happen. See the accounts of the funeral procession for Douglas Haig in 1928, the death and state funeral of George VI in 1952, the death and state funeral of Winston Churchill in 1965, and a few others as well. I was hoping to find a source that gave a traditional route for such events, but drew a blank.

On the replicas or close copies, it may be worth checking the Alex King reference again as there is a recent article (2020) here that states Lutyens' Cenotaph was "broadly imitated and referenced in a number of First World War Memorials erected during the 1920s, including those in Leeds, Glasgow, and Stoke-on-Trent", referencing King pp.140-150. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carcharoth. Thanks for your support with the article's development. I think the salutes are evidence of the same kind of reverence as the removal of hats and show the effect that the Cenotaph continued to have on people for years (and arguably still does, though perhaps only on certain days of the year). I've done my best to capture that, and you can see the depth and breadth of sourcing from the bibliography, but I'm not sure it's really been documented. King does indeed mention Glasgow, Leeds, and Stoke but he and Borg use various examples to illustrate the point about its influence and I've tried to avoid an indiscriminate list of other cenotaphs—the IWM identified at least 55, most of which probably owe something to Lutyens but I've added Leeds and Glasgow (I'm surprised Glasgow is a red link!), but Stoke's was demolished and replaced. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood and surprised that Stoke was demolished! The distinction that would be ideal (but probably not clear enough in the sources) would be between other memorials inspired by the Cenotaph, the ones by Lutyens where he drew on his own design of the Cenotaph, and those cases where those raising the memorial explicitly negotiated with Lutyens for the right to erect an exact replica (though usually of a reduced size). Of these three categories, it is this latter category that I would have expected to see covered more in the literature, but it appears not. I did at one point put together a gallery (see here) of examples, as I find that 'exporting' of the design more interesting than the focus on Lutyens' other cenotaphs in the UK, but I see that this gallery didn't survive the upgrade. You say the replicas elsewhere in the empire are in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Bermuda, and Hong Kong. Do you know where in Australia there is a replica? The idea was certainly reported on, as here, but it seems that the plans to use the Lutyens design in Brisbane foundered and it never went ahead, so I am not convinced there is a replica in Australia unless there is an explicit citation (the cenotaph in North Sydney isn't the Lutyens design). The cenotaph in Johannesburg has been linked to the Lutyens design (but isn't a replica). At least one source explicitly talks about the process by which permission was obtained from Lutyens (for Hong Kong): p.109 from this book chapter (Hong Kong’s Cenotaph and Beyond). The authoritative record on replicas (both erected and planned-but-never-erected appears to be still mostly in the National Archives file here (so not usable unless someone publishes and refers to it, as they did for Hong Kong). I do think it is worth putting in a tad more detail about Hong Kong and/or including in the gallery some of the 'empire' replicas (particularly if some of the other images encounter problems). It would also take the focus away from Lutyens' UK work (6 images of his other cenotaphs seems overkill) and illustrate the wider impact across the world, which might give the article and/or gallery a better balance (including explicit replicas is not an indiscriminate list). Carcharoth (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth and HJ Mitchell: I wouldn't worry about the Stoke one. From https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/13563 : "Simple replica of the Whitehall Cenotaph in London with a wreath on the front face. This memorial was intended to be a temporary structure and was replaced by the current Stoke on Trent cenotaph (see record number 13670) in 1938." Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 09:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in: There's this cenotaph in Bendigo. Ham II (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ham II! That is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Following this information trail, I ended up at a page from another work co-authored by the late Ken Inglis: Sacred Places: War Memorials in the Australian Landscape (2008). I will quote from page 340, where the erection of a Cenotaph in Bendigo is described as a 'reversal' (i.e. from a utilitarian memorial to a monumental memorial):

"The most spectacular reversal occurred in the Victorian town of Bendigo, where the old memorial hall was accompanied from 1957 by a half-sized replica of London's Cenotaph, unveiled nearly forty years after the original. [The text then describes how the patron asked Lutyen's widow for permission to...] reproduce in Bendigo the most revered of monuments to British Great War dead [with the unveiling ceremony described as...] a festival of conservative imperial Australia."

There are now two cases of Lutyens' replicas being documented in secondary sources (Hong Kong and Bendigo). The tricky thing is to distinguish in the article between memorials influenced by the London Cenotaph, and those that are exact or reduced-scale replicas. These are two distinct concepts and the distinction needs to be made clearer, possibly by use of the examples provided here. Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will have a look at adding something more about other cenotaphs but I doubt the sourcing will support much. There are two in New Zealand that are mentioned in Lutyens and the Great War that are close copies of London's but were actually sketched from newsreel. There are many others that obviously owe a lot to Lutyens but didn't involve him directly, and others that were claimed to be close replicas that look nothing like it, so the distinction you make is not always clear. Will see what I can dig up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: I've added something from Skelton about other cenotaphs abroad, which might help make some distinction, but there's little in the sources about the distinction with UK cenotaphs between "exact replica" and "inspired by" or just "named Cenotaph" beyond the ones that Lutyens designed himself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Harry, for the delay in getting back to this, and thanks for adding this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support from KJP1

edit

HJM - Very moving. Just read it through twice and it captures the monument's significance very well. Shall get back with a review asap. Just putting a couple of things here so I don't forget them. I'll reorder them properly, so just ignore them for now. KJP1 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Date of Lutyens' design - approved on 7 July 1919, [5]
    • Already in the article, cited to Greenberg.
  • Photo of Lutyens at the temporary structure - Letters to His Wife, p=370 - great if findable/useable, but suspect not.
    • I assume it's the same photo as in Lutyens and the Great War? See Nikki's image review above for some of the problems we're having with historical photos! If someone has the technical and copyright expertise to get it onto Commons, I'd happily include it.
  • Pevsner|Bradley, pp=245-6, "The chief national war memorial" - Impact: On other war memorials.
Apologies for the pause on this. Real life is troublesome. Will get to it this weekend. KJP1 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "The word "cenotaph" is derived from Greek, meaning "empty tomb"" - appreciate this is the NHLE wording, but is it actually Greek or Ancient Greek?
  • I suspect possibly the latter (possibly via the former, but the concept is ancient) but we can only write what the sources say.
  • "It takes the form of a tomb chest atop a rectangular pylon" - I'd link pylon on first meeting.
  • Done.
  • "It has sometimes been compared to other famous war memorials" - not quite sure what's being got at here, or where it (re)appears in the body, unless it's the last para. of "Appreciation"? Is it saying something about its influence/impact, which is discussed in the next para.?
  • Removed.
Infobox
  • Would this benefit from a map? Seems to be space for it.
  • I'm not sure it would be helpful, but it wouldn't do any harm if someone wanted to add one.
Background
  • "his first public commission was the design of much of New Delhi" - nit-picking but are we certain Delhi predates the Johannesburg Art Gallery and the British School at Rome? The former was 1910 and the latter 1911. I think the Delhi commission came in early 1912. Perhaps "his first major public commission", or some such?
Done.
Origins: the temporary Cenotaph
  • "Lloyd George summoned Lutyens[b]" - Appreciate it is covered in Note B (see above), but I'd favour expanding that note to confirm that the design was approved on 7 July 1919, which supports the contention that Lutyens and LlG met in early July.[6] You mention this further down in the Curzon sentence.
  • As you say, the date is mentioned further down. I'm not sure it's necessary to repeat it here. The note already says that Hussey's date can't be correct.
  • "Sir Frank Baines, chief architect at the Office of Works" - link Office of Works.
  • It's linked on first mention.
Reconstruction in stone
  • "Lutyens proposed was the replacement of the silk flags on the temporary Cenotaph with painted stone" - "with ones/models/replicas in painted stone"?
There's possibly room for improvement in the phrasing but I don't think those suggestions are improvements.
  • "wooden money collection box in the shape of the Cenotaph made from wood" - you can probably drop the "wood" without loss.
Reworded.
Design
  • "Above it is the transition moulding which is in three stages-torus (semi-circular), cyma reversa, and cavetto" - a complex sentence, made harder for me by the hyphen. Would a colon work; "the transition moulding which is in three stages: torus, cyma reversa and cavetto"?
I hate colons in mid-prose, sorry!
  • "The coffin lid finishes with a cornice, appearing to be supported by ovolo (curved decorative moulding beneath the edge)" - what's the "appearing" doing? Does the moulding not actually support the corniche?
  • No, it doesn't. It's purely decorative.
  • "The sculptural work was carried out by Derwent Wood" - bluelink Derwent Wood. I'm assuming it's the same guy, although oddly our article on him doesn't mention the Cenotaph.
  • He's linked above.
  • "in the Royal Institute of British Architects' drawing library." - "drawings library", or "drawings collection"?
Drawing library is the term used in the books and seems like a natural term to me.
Appreciation
  • "not all of which have been positive. Some ascribed imperialistic or nationalistic meanings to it, including Haig, who called it "a symbol of the empire's unity"" - I see what you mean, but surely Haig meant his symbolism comment to be positive?
Reworded.
  • "the apparent simplicity and lack of decoration to the two memorials" - "the apparent simplicity of, and lack of decoration on, the two memorials"?
Done.
  • "He compared the diminishing tiers (when viewed from the ground up) to the hilt of sheathed sword" - "of a sheathed sword"?
  • Done.
Impact - On Lutyens
  • A couple of things here. The Cenotaph did make his name, although he got his knighthood in 1918. There's quite a nice quote in Amery et. al., which may be usable. "The immense popular and professional success of Lutyens's intuitive brilliance with his Cenotaph design made him into the most famous architect in the British Empire."{{sfn|Amery|Richardson|Stamp|1981|p=149}} But I think it also needs a snippet on the emotional, rather than just the professional, impact on Lutyens. It is certain from the sources that the war had a major emotional impact on him: "how can such things be. A ribbon of isolated graves, where men were tucked in where they fell. How to arrange their names in decent order. The question is so big, so wide..." (Brown|p=167) Actually, virtually the whole letter is in Hussey (p=373), which might be a better source. Brown also has a nice quote from J. M. Barrie; "The cenotaph grows in beauty. I stand cogitating why and how it is so noble a thing. It is how the war has lifted you and moved you above yourself."(p=172) Again, usable?
I'm familiar with the Barrie quote and the letter. I was reluctant to add another quote to a section that already contains quite a few. The letter seems a little tangential to the Cenotaph specifically. I have Amery but hadn't used it because it's light on detail but I'll have a look.
Impact - On art and literature
  • For me, the poem titles would look better italicised, as the painting and book titles are. But oddly, we appear to adopt both styles more widely on Wiki, e.g. Burnt Norton and The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Does MoS not prescribe an approach?
  • MOS:TITLE seems to suggest that only lengthy poems get italics. I can't say I'm fussed, but poems from an anthology being in quotes would fit with songs and episodes (albums, series, and anthologies having italics).
Impact - On other war memorials
  • Here, I would use Pevsner, (see above). Both for completeness, and because its description "The chief, national war memorial" conveys both its importance and its influence. It also refers to "demountable railings, set up every November", which Lutyens designed in 1938. Presumably they're not still in use?
Added the quote. I've seen photos of railings (in Skelton I think) but no idea if they're the originals. Not sure they're important enough to mention in the article on the Cenotaph.
Images
  • Yes, understand the challenge (see above). The one that would be good, of Lutyens walking away from the temporary Cenotaph, is also in Brown (p=171). But no idea whether it could be got. I doubt it as I can't even find it on Google.
  • Historical images are a bit of a problem. We need to know the provenance (photographer and original publication dates) to establish the copyright status.
Missing
  • The only thing that immediately occurs is anything around the costs? Vulgar, I know but important. Lutyens writes to his wife of Parliament voting £10,000. Usable?
Oddly, it doesn't come up in any of the books. It's the sort of detail I'd expect Skelton to mention. I'll have another look.

That's it from me. As I said, a very moving read, and you've done sterling work on the whole series. It's getting closer to the point where the Lutyens article itself needs doing! Have a look at the suggestions above, include or discard as appropriate, and I'll be delighted to support. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog - Apologies, overlooked this one. Harry’s taken a look at my comments/suggestions and I’m very happy to Support. KJP1 (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by WereSpielChequers

edit

Very nicely written, pretty comprehensive coverage. I would suggest adding something about the WWII damage during the Blitz. I'm sure I've seen a heavily sandbagged cenotaph picture somewhere, but I couldn't readily find it. ϢereSpielChequers 10:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: This doesn't seem to be documented anywhere reliable. I dug up a reference to the Guards Memorial suffering bomb damage, but nothing on the Cenotaph. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harry, if we can't find a reliable source for that then we can't include it. ϢereSpielChequers 21:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • [44] is a citation to "Gregory (2009)" that I suspect should be "Gregory (2008)"
  • [116] needs the year
  • Massingham is too early for an ISBN; did you consult a later edition?
I suspect it’s the 1984 reprint, here [7], but will let Harry confirm. KJP1 (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding chapter page numbers to the Richardson cite.
  • The link in [131] is dead.
Repaired.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Ham II

edit

Another excellent piece of work, on the most vital article of your whole project – it's always among the most viewed pages on memorials and public art in London.

  • "The Cenotaph is a First World War memorial" – as originally conceived, but its scope is broader now.
  • "the First World War (1914–1918)" – Not the dates according to the Cenotaph's inscription; it gives the end date as MCMXIX, as one of the article's photos shows very clearly. Perhaps leave these dates out of the lede, assuming the reader has some general knowledge (and if not, they're in the first section of the article body), and if the sources say anything about the 1919 date include that in the article? The discrepancy is the sort of thing a curious observer might want to find out about from the article.
    • Dates removed from lead. I've not come across anything specific to the Cenotaph but a lot of memorials used 1919. I believe they took the Treaty of Versailles, rather than the armistice, to be the "end" of the war.
  • Not sure about the structure of the lede; I would expect to find the date the (permanent) Cenotaph was erected in the first paragraph, but instead it goes into relative depth about the temporary version. I'd also be inclined to include the National Service of Remembrance in the first paragraph, as an indicator of the Cenotaph's significance.
  • "the repatriation of the Unknown Warrior, an unidentified British serviceman to be interred in Westminster Abbey" → "[...] who was interred in Westminster Abbey"
  • "Southampton Cenotaph" sometimes takes the definite article here and sometimes doesn't.
  • What are the citations for the first four sentences of the second paragraph in the Background section?
    • Everything from the start of a paragraph to the first <ref> tag is supported by the reference(s) following.
  • Should the sentence beginning "Cenotaphs originated in Ancient Greek tradition" follow the one on the etymology (in the Background section)?
  • "introduces several design elements common in Lutyens's subsequent memorials" – Should it say what these are?
  • "Homberger, Eric (12 November 1976). "The Story of the Cenotaph". The Times Literary Supplement." – Should this have page references?
    • It's a single-page article.
  • I don't really know if "Lady Emily" is correct for the wife of a knight; some stuff online seems to suggest that it should be "Lady [Surname]".
    • Yes it is. Lady [surname] would be correct for the wife of a lord.
  • "Curzon wants it less catafalque so I am putting a great urn on it" – The phrasing is rather different as Ward-Jackson (p. 418) quotes it: "if possible less catafalqué ... I am putting a great vase or basin on it – to spout a pillar of flame at night and I hope smoke by day". (The starting point of the quotation and the ellipsis are as they appear in Ward-Jackson.) Is the quotation accurately transcribed from Greenberg? Ward-Jackson doesn't specify that the letter he's quoting is to Lady Lutyens, so it might be a different letter saying the same thing.
    • I've been back to Greenberg and the quote in the Wikipedia article is verbatim from the source.
  • "the first anniversary of the armistice" – Capital A for Armistice?
  • "Mond announced that the decision rested with the cabinet" – Link Cabinet of the United Kingdom and capitalise?
    • I don't think anyone reading about cenotaphs wants to go on a tangent about the organisation of the British government, and the term is probably understood by most English speakers.
  • "This was accepted without issue." – "Issue" doesn't sound right in this register; perhaps "without objection"?
  • "(the empty tomb)" → "(the "empty tomb" suggested by the word cenotaph)"?
  • "Its mass" → "The monument's mass"?
  • "The base of the cenotaph" → "The base of the monument"? Ditto for "The cenotaph is austere" later.
  • "the world wars" – a proper name taking capital letters? (This would apply to the second sentence of the lede as well.) If so, perhaps capitalise First and Second later too, to make it more obvious what the ordinals refer to?
    • It's not a proper noun.
  • Any mention in the sources of how the carved wreaths on the north and south faces appear as if suspended on ribbons from round protuberances to the left and right?
    • Surprisingly, no.
  • "Lutyens was a pantheist and heavily influenced by his wife's involvement with Theosophy and opposed overt religious symbolism on the Cenotaph and in his work with the IWGC" – too many ands.
  • "to be known as the Unknown Warrior" → "who was to be known as the Unknown Warrior"
  • "The Cenotaph was shrouded in Union Flags, until the king performed the unveiling" – no need for a comma.
  • "the abbey" (all instances) – capital A, I should think.
    • "Abbey" is not a proper noun (cf. a cenotaph vs. The Cenotaph).
      • I'm willing to concede that, but it makes me wonder about "Calls for a permanent Cenotaph began almost immediately" in the second paragraph. Also "Britain and its Empire"; quoted text later in the article has "from all parts of the empire" and "a symbol of the empire's unity". And the subsequent "British and Empire dead" (×2). Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could go either way on "the Empire", but I've de-capped all of these now I think.
  • "which Greenberg believed would have been at odds with its "open symbolism and abstract character"" – in context this reads as if Greenberg was someone who voiced an opinion in the 1920s; change the tense of "believed".
  • "Borg observed" → "Borg has observed". I think it should be present perfect tense for scholars' opinions throughout the Appreciation section, as well.
    • Unless there's a style guide I'm missing or some such, I'm not sure why we would put opinions of people who opined in the past, in the present tense?
      • Present perfect. I suppose MOS:TENSE could be used to argue against the past tense, but I'm not going to push this. However, there ought to be internal consistency. There are references in the present tense to writings by Allan Greenberg, David Lloyd and Paul Fussell; apologies if any of those were put in during one of my copyedits. They should be in whichever tense is used for the other scholars' opinions. Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham II: Thank you for your kind words and attention to detail, and apologies for the tardy response. I believe I've addressed everything except where I've replied inline. Please let me know if I've missed anything or you want to follow up further. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more after a second read-through, and I've also replied above. I hope I haven't been holding up Ceoil's review.

  • "Lutyens added entasis (curvature)" → "Lutyens added entasis (slight convex curvature)"?
    • I'm reluctant to get into more detail at this point; the link is blue if the reader wants to know more, and it's covered in a few more words further down.
  • "and has been largely praised" → "and has largely been praised"?
  • "was responsible for Lutyens becoming a national figure" → "[...] Lutyens's [...]"?
    • I think this works with or without the possessive but I prefer it without.
  • "By the time he was commissioned for the Cenotaph" → "By the time he had received the commission for the Cenotaph"?
    • That seems like extra words for no added meaning.
  • "One of Lutyens's sketches for the Cenotaph, in the collection of the Imperial War Museum" – This is not a sketch (despite the filename); I'd suggest calling it either an architectural drawing or, as the IWM's catalogue entry does, an "original design" for the Cenotaph. Also, although our article title doesn't do this, the IWM is properly the Imperial War Museums now. This would also affect the later instances of "Imperial War Museum collections", "the collection of the Imperial War Museum" and "The Imperial War Museum's War Memorials Register".
    • Fixed. It was the IWM at the time of the Cenotaph's inception, and the museum in Elephant and Castle remains so (although it's part of a larger body these days). I don't want to confuse matters by getting bogged down in a tangential detail.
  • "reminiscent of the Parthenon in Greece" – Is it necessary to give the location? If so, "Greece" is a bit imprecise.
  • "The bottom of the structure is moulded onto three diminishing steps" – I don't understand "moulded onto"; is that meant to be "mounted onto"?
  • "in the centre of Whitehall surrounded by government buildings" → "in the centre of the roadway, surrounded by government buildings". A very pernickety point, this, but the Cenotaph is at the end of Whitehall, at the point where it becomes Parliament Street.
    • But it's in the middle of the carriageway.
  • "so as to be barely visible to the naked eye (entasis)" → "[...] (a device known as entasis)"? I realise it is defined in an earlier section.
    • That feels like extra words for no added value.
  • "flags of the United Kingdom—the Royal Air Force Ensign [etc.]" – colon
    • I despise colons in mid-prose; hence the emdash.
  • "the Second World War (1939–1945)" – If the dates for WWI have been removed, for consistency these should be as well.
  • "executed during the war for desertion" – Not obvious from the context which war, but from the reference it must be WWI?

Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ham II: see what you think now. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Ceoil said, all my substantive points are met now, so this has my Support. Ham II (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

edit

Hello Harry, thank you for this fine article which honours the Cenotaph, the fallen and Lutyens. This is my Anzac Day contribution. I have a few comments and questions...

  • Dozens of replicas were built in Britain and Commonwealth countries - and 'other' Commonwealth countries?
  • Lutyens himself designed several others - is "himself" needed?
  • file Edwin Lutyens.jpg alt of a bespectaceld, balding man - typo bespectacled
  • the Cenotaph came to represent the absent dead and served as a substitute - tense mix? ie, represented/served or came to represent and serve?
  • "public began laying flowers and wreaths around the Cenotaph's base" and "huge quantities of flowers were laid at the base of the monument" - repetitious?
  • A two-minute silence was observed, after which - wlink Two-minute silence
  • missing info? next section is "Reconstruction in stone" but what was temp made of? Mention it was of wood and plaster construction?
  • Suggestions that the temporary cenotaph be - cap C?
  • the fledgling Imperial War Museum (founded in 1917) - move IWM wlink up to here from "design process is in the collection of the Imperial War Museum, as are several"?
  • a wooden money collection box - maybe hyphenate money-collection (otherwise ambiguous ie wooden money)?
  • Its mass decreases with its height, the sides becoming narrower towards the bottom of the coffin than at the base. - not sure "than at the base" is necessary ("decreases with its height" says it). Could also remove "the bottom of".
  • which is in three stages-torus - is that geometry link correct or should be Molding (decorative)#Torus (but would need anchor added there ie per cyma reversa)?
  • file The Cenotaph alt=fabrig flags - typo fabric
  • are several of Lutyens's original sketches; several other - 2x "several"
  • in Westminster Abbey, inaugurated - move wlink up to here from "existence of the tomb in Westminster Abbey."
  • held in Westminster Abbey rather than the Cenotaph - at the Cenotaph?
  • and not an unknown warrior that became - this is only place without caps, is intentional?
  • gun carriage - wlink Gun carriage#State and military funerals?
  • even on a bus - even when on a bus (or even from a bus)?
  • After the unveiling of the permanent memorial, members of the public again laid floral tributes, - this sounds like repeat of "The public response to the newly unveiled memorial exceeded ... began to file past the Cenotaph and lay flowers at its base." Perhaps slight reword eg 'At the permanent memorial, members of the public continued to lay floral tributes
  • glass domes - any wlink? What did they hold/cover/symbolise? Were they Bell jar#Decorative or preservative? If no link or explanation available, ignore this question
  • and how to preserve an appropriate tone. It began preserving the messages so they could be compiled into albums and given to the Imperial War Museum. By March 1921, officials had catalogued over 30,000 items; the volume was such that they were forced to abandon their efforts at preservation. The Office of Works was keen to avoid being seen as a censor but also to preserve the character - 4 x preserv/, any alt word/s?
  • preserve the character of the cenotaph - cap C
  • and on a statue of Winston Churchill. - the statue of? (I presume there is only one of Churchill in vicinity?)
  • base was vandalised with spray paint - move link up to "protestors spray-painted slogans"
  • during Black Lives Matter protests - pipe to George Floyd protests in the United Kingdom?
  • According Paul Fussell, an American - according to
  • such as ANZAC Day - now more commonly formatted as Anzac Day eg AWM, ABC, BBC ref and this discussion.
  • applied to only 2.5% of listings - per cent (per MoS)?
  • According to Jane Brown, in a biography of the architect - her biography?
  • from the unveiling of the Cenotaph until at least 1924.[126] He went on to design over 130 war memorials and cemeteries, many influenced by his work on the Cenotaph. His Southampton Cenotaph was unveiled in 1920, while the permanent monument on Whitehall was still under construction. - needs chrono tweak? (ie "from the unveiling" ... "he went on" ... but then Southampton unveiled before London? Unless "from the unveiling of the Cenotaph" refers to the unveiling of the temporary?
  • cemeteries, many influenced by his work on the Cenotaph - how were cemeteries influenced by Cenotaph? Simplicity?
  • aside - gallery, pity the Longstaff isn't bigger, it's so stunning and evocative
  • "were built across Britain, along with many other monuments inspired to some extent by Lutyens's design" - is slight repeat of "Several towns and cities erected war memorials based to some extent on Lutyens's design for Whitehall" just above?
  • gallery "Other cenotaphs by Lutyens in the UK" Some other? ie there are more than those pictured
  • ref 44 Gregory (2009), p. 268. - year is 2008?
  • ref 99 Dearden, Lizzie - no retrieved date
  • ref 116 Gregory, p. 142. - add year
  • consistency - "21st century" and "20th century" v "twenty-first century"
  • consistency - how do you decide on tenses when quoting authors etc eg historian "Mosse noted that" v "Lloyd notes that"
  • consistency - authorlink v author-link
  • Remembrance Day v Armistice Day - needs explanation? (Armistice Sunday is explained)

Thanks, please let me know if you need any clarifications for my comments. JennyOz (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between Armistice Day, Remembrance Day, and Remembrance Sunday is a little complicated and probably mostly out of scope for an article on an individual war memorial. Other than that, I believe I've addressed all your comments. Thank you for thoroughness and apologies for my tardiness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jenny, anything to follow? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose, will have another quick read through later today. Sorry for delay. JennyOz (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary, Jenny. I've been busy in real life so my responses have been slow. If I’ve missed anything or you think of anything else, I’d be happy to try and address it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Harry, finally got here. I have re-read and have added 2 further minor suggested changes...
  • signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 28 June 1919 - on 28 June
  • According to the literary historian Andrew Moffett, the poems - Alex

Trusting you will consider these, I am very pleased to now sign my support. Thank you again. JennyOz (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JennyOz: both fixed. Thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit

Placeholder. Waiting for the above to be resolved, and will comment then. Obviously this is an important article. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ham beat me to the party, and have closely follow their review. It is forensic and real, but winding down now and now at a stage, where given Harry's responses, I support. I realise some points are open, but they are tweaking, Ham's substantive points have been meet. Ceoil (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Comments by Johnbod

edit

I haven't read all the above, but the article has had a good chewing over, so I hope I'll just have a few comments.

  • "It takes the form of a tomb chest atop a rectangular pylon, which diminishes as it rises. The memorial is austere, containing almost no decoration. From each side hang three flags." Lead para 2. Me, I'd link Pylon (architecture) here as well. I suppose you considered linking sarcophagus at "tomb chest" - no strong view. Possible touches: "which diminishes in steps as it rises" - unlike Egyptian pylons, all the stages have apparently vertical faces; "The memorial is austere, containing very little decoration, and few inscriptions". Perhaps "Three flags are placed into both long sides" - or "real cloth flags on poles".
  • "Lutyens's first war memorial was the Rand Regiments Memorial in Johannesburg" add the date, which seems to be 1911 for his work. I'd break this para too, at "From 1915".
  • "objected to the lack of Christian symbol" - "symbols", "a Cs", "symbolism", or something else?
  • "Design" it's in the measurements, and some of the pics, but I think you could spell out more that there are two long sides and two short. And their positions - the long ones facing across the street, the short ones down the street.
  • Split 2nd para here.
  • " it is crowned by a laurel wreath" add "invisible from below"?
  • "The Cenotaph is flanked on each side by flags of the United Kingdom" - again, each long side.
  • "The Cenotaph has been contrasted with..." split para.
  • That's it - a very thorough & satisfying article! Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Thanks for having a look, John. All addressed, I believe, except I'm reluctant to add more detail to the lead, which has been heavily trimmed as a result of comments above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it was only User:Z1720 who thought the lead was too long, wasn't it? Not for the first time, I disagree with that. Anyway, happy to Support. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2022 (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/The_Cenotaph/archive1&oldid=1092760762"