Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal Artillery Memorial/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2020 [1].

Royal Artillery Memorial

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) and HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of an absence, and an even longer gap since I brought a war memorial here, I bring you one of the most famous and recognisable of them all. It's a bit of a detour for me in that it's not Lutyens. Gone are his subtle architectural forms, replaced with an enormous field gun and a corpse. It's certainly striking, and considered the defining work of Charles Sargeant Jagger. The Royal Artillery wanted a monument that was unmistakably "artillery" ... and they got it.

The article is mostly the work of Hchc, who took it through GA and A-class back in 2011/2012 and I've preserved his writing style and formatting choices wherever possible, while adding some new material (we've had the centenary of WWI since then and a renewed interest in its memorials) and polishing here and there. I believe it meets all the criteria, but I stand ready to answer any quibbles. Please be aware that at times I might only be able to check in every few days due to real-life commitments. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

[edit]
  • Citation consistency ... accessed or retrieved?
    • Comparison based on 1922 prices, using the RPI measures at the Measuring Worth website, accessed 1 April 2011.
    • "Royal Artillery". War Memorials Register. Imperial War Museums. Retrieved 28 October 2020.
  • WP:CITATION OVERKILL, this doesn't look controversial, are four citations needed, if so, can they be bundled?
    • The memorial was eventually unveiled four months late on 18 October 1925 by Prince Arthur and the Reverend Alfred Jarvis.[20][76][83][84]
  • Put citations in ascending order ...
    • He was awarded the Royal British Society of Sculptors' gold medal in 1926 and was admitted as an associate of the society later that year.[86][43]

Just some driveby comments with a very quick glance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, thanks for having a look! I believe I've addressed all of those; some good attention to detail there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will look in again later (busy trying to get PR moving again to help FAC). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia: I know that you are busy with any number of things, but I was wondering if you were intending to add to your comments. No pressure either way, but it would be helpful to know. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On my list for today ... yes, got busy with mindless tasks to take my mind off COVID. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor nitpicks, nothing to prevent promotion:

  • showing the over-lifesize howitzer, with the Wellington Arch in the background ... over–lifesize seems awkward ... larger-than-lifesize? supporting a one-third over-lifesize ... one-third larger than lifesize ?
  • The "subsequently" here seems unnecessarily redundant ... Subsequently, the RAWCF began exploring sites for its own individual monument, ... The RAWCF began ... Ditto here ... which was declined and he subsequently withdrew from the project.
  • This is awkward, since it doesn't follow why none was able ... until we get to the next sentence ... The RAWCF approached several eminent architects but its insistence on a visual representation of artillery meant that none was able to produce a satisfactory design. ... it was not their insistence that ... meant ... rather the lack of military background of any of the then-iminent architects ?? Maybe work some of the next sentence back in to this one?
  • At the end of each arm of the cross is a sculpture of a soldier ... first time we encounter the word cross ... what cross? We have to go deep into the article to discover ... The plinth is in the form of a squat Roman cross.
  • I don't think we need to relink World War I in the article when it is already linked in the lead ... not a difficult term or concept ... The First World War, which took place between 1914 and 1918,

Gog the Mild, I think this is good to go, trusting that HJ Mitchell will address these nitpicks as needed (or not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil

[edit]

Still reading through, seems mostly there, some prose quibbles I could not resolve myself:

  • Although at first the memorial received a mixed reception,' - first off the phrase "mixed reception", ugg; very wiki album article speak ;) More importantly it might be interesting to detail some of those views, positive or not so. Ceoil (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but its reception was mixed. How about "conflicting opinions?" ;) And there's an entire section of nearly 800 words immediately above that gives those mixedconflicting opinions so I don't think we need to go over it again in the history section.
"Conflicting opinions" is better, I see now you go into this in detail later. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In later years, the memorial's reputation diminished - not quite as there was a revival in esteem? Maybe...between x yr and the 1980s
    • Went with "later in the 20th century".
  • described the figure as "a poignant and tremendous statement of fact which unconsciously makes the onlooker raise his hat" - which figure
    • The dead one. Specified.
  • retrieved 1 April 2011 doesn't give much confidence
    • Because of the date or because it was nine years ago? ;) I don't put much stock in these things, though apparently we have a template for it so that ref is gone.
  • It is cared for by English Heritage - is "cared" the right word?
    • Not sure. EH's term is "in the guardianship" but I don't like that either.
Have rephrased as "managed". "cared for" seemed a bit motherly. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioned this in an edit summary, but you have "strength and power" in two consecutive sentences.
    • A relic from copy-editing. Fixed.
  • Even the carved stone reliefs have an aggressive, hostile quality to them - "Even" and "aggressive, hostile" seem like further attribution is needed here. Same with "dehumanising" in the preceding sentence.
    • Tweaked a bit to be closer to the source.
  • Lead: The Royal Artillery War Commemoration Fund (RAWCF) was formed in 1918 to decide on commemorations - its seems they did more than "decide"
    • Changed to "presided"
  • Lead: the most influential - not explained here. Given the preceding differed significantly - was the monument a break from earlier types?
    • The Cenotaph is without doubt the most influential British WWI memorial; if readers want to know more about that they can click the link (one day I'll bring that article here) but I don't want to go into detail about it in the lead of an article on a different memorial. There's detail in the body about how most WWI memorials used classical architecture and abstract designs as opposed to a whacking great field gun with a dead soldier behind it.
  • Very nice work, expecting to support. Ceoil (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Ceoil, nice to hear from you! Thanks a lot for the review and for the copy edits. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, nice balance between mlit history and the relative drama surrounding its commission, its aesthetic qualities and how poorly modernism was viewed by the establishment at the time (though this could be better emphasised as the negative reviews were rather prissy, prim and buttoned uped- do any of the later sources comment on this?), and its impact on WW2 memorial designers. As said above when starting the review; v well written. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The lead credits one person with the design and the infobox has two - which is correct?
    • Both, but I've added a mention of Pearson to the lead.
  • Is there a reason for the lead to include the exact number of artillery deaths in WWI but a rounded number for WW2? And if so, suggest rounding the latter up since it is much closer to 30k than 29
    • No, there isn't. We can have the exact number.
  • Be consistent in how page notation is formatted - some are spaced, some not
    • I prefer spaced but Hchc's style was unspaced and I've tried to stick to his style but old habits die hard!
  • FN66 doesn't match formatting of other Compton refs
    • Fixed.
  • FN87: which Compton?
    • Fixed.
  • If you're citing only a single chapter of a larger edited work, I'd suggest representing that with a single entry in Bibliography, and including page numbers for the whole chapter
    • Personally, I agree with you, but I'm loathe to change another editor's style (and I think there are three different chapters by three different authors cited here).
  • Most of the publishing locations don't include country, but then Matthews does
    • Missed one! Thanks.
  • The publisher for Quinlan appears to be a print-on-demand service - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    • This has come up at previous FACs. The book is well-regarded in relevant circles and actually cited by some of the others (including ones published by academic presses, I think), and it contains footnotes to sources for anything out of the ordinary. In context, I think it's reliable for what it supports (Which is actually very little for the length of the prose).
  • The Windrow link returns an error. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Bacon 21:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "several members of the RAWCF were unimpressed by the regiment's memorial to that war" - Unclear what "the regiment" is.
    • Clarified
  • "Further problems arose when the Office of Works stated that it would not approve Lutyens' design on the grounds that it would be too tall for its surroundings" - I'm confused by the use of the singular here, as what's been discussed previously is not a single Lutyens design, but three of them, so its unclear which one is being discussed.
    • Also clarified; Lutyens' submissions were essentially variations on the same theme but I don't want to get bogged down in the details.
  • "There were concerns on the committee that the design would offend some members of the public, especially women" - Why?
    • "Offend" is perhaps not the right term. "Shock" is probably better.
  • "a Shell carrier on the east side" - Shell shouldn't be capitalized
    • Quite right. Fixed.

That's about all I can find. Good work. Hog Farm Bacon 18:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you very much for reviewing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

This is in pretty good shape as I would expect given the previous work of the nominator. I have only a few nitpicks: Background

  • ...or felt that the events challenged their trust in the political leadership that had led them into the war. I think something isn't quite right here RE "the events". Perhaps "or felt their trust in the political leadership that had led them into the war had been challenged." Or is that a bit too passive?
    • I can live with that.

Commissioning

  • ...but several committee members felt to be too similar... Suggest "...but several committee members felt these to be too similar..."
    • Already caught by KJP!
  • ...a model for a realist sculpture, to include a group of soldiers.... The comma seems misplaced here, or perhaps it should read: "...a model for a realist sculpture, which was to include a group of soldiers..."
    • Done.
  • ...which he submitted to RAWCF early the following year. should be "...to the RAWCF..."
    • Good catch. Done.
  • ...bringing into line with the main axis of the base... missing it after "bringing"
    • And again!
  • ...additional figure himself.[29][21] order of cites here.
    • Fixed. These are relics from previous edits and things being moved around I think!
  • The cites that finish off the final para of this section should be in ascending order.
    • And again.

Design and symbolism

  • the one-third oversized replica: In the lead, this is described as one-third over-lifesize. Suggest consistency in description.
    • Good spot! Done.
  • "...King and country in the Great War 1914—1919" In the infobox, the entire quote is title case but not here?
    • No idea if Hchch had a reason in mind for doing it one way or the other. I've put them both in sentence case. Hchc, if you have a strong opinion feel free to change it back.
  • The third and fourth paras have a few cites out of ascending order
    • Fixed.

Critical reception

  • In the second para of this section, cites 12 and 7 are out of order.
    • And again!

Later history

  • In July 2014 its status was raised to Grade I,... this seems repetitive as it is established earlier in the paragraph the status of the memorial had been upgraded. I think you meant to provide a general description of what Grade I status means rather than correlating to the memorial's upgrade.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

[edit]

Great to see a Hchc2009/HJ Mitchell collaboration here. Some comments below.

Lead
  • "meant that artillery played a major role in the war, though physical reminders of the fighting were often avoided in the years after the war" - I see where this is coming from but could it be made clearer? Something like; "direct representations/depictions of the conflict were often avoided..."?
  • But it goes deeper than that, eg disfigured veterans being excluded from marches (as mentioned briefly in the article). It's not just that violence wasn't portrayed on memorials.
  • "The memorial consists of a Portland stone cruciform base" - link "cruciform"?
  • Sure, why not.
  • "The memorial is a Grade I listed structure" - link "listed building", and perhaps "listed structure"?
  • Done. I prefer "building" because that's the legal term used by HE, even if it's not a "building" per se.
Background
  • "Artillery guns and their crews were themselves targets, however," - I'm not generally a "however" warrior but I wonder if it's needed here?
  • Good spot! I've had "however" beaten out of me at previous FACs! This one wasn't adding anything, so it's gone.
  • "Where sculpture of human figures was used in First World War memorials, it tended to use allegorical figures" - perhaps replace the second "use" with "show/depict"?
  • Absolutely.
Commissioning
  • "Adrian Jones, who had produced the Boer War Cavalry Memorial" - I don't have the sources but can't identify this memorial. Is it this, [2]? He did do the WWI Cavalry statue but it's obviously not that. Do the sources state where it is?
  • Leave that with me. I'll go back to the books and check.
  • "the committee contacted the architects Sir Edwin Lutyens, Herbert Baker and Sir Aston Webb" - I see you've not gone for footnotes in this article but if you did, it might be worth noting that Webb had earlier designed the Royal Artillery Boer War Memorial, which you mention above.
  • I debated it. Since you've mentioned it I've put it in parentheses in the prose.
  • "(approximately equivalent to £661,000 in 2016)" - should this, and elsewhere, be updated to 2020 equivalents?
  • It's done by a template. I'm guessing that's the most recent year with figures available or something and it'll update when the figures do? I'm sceptical of these comparisons anyway.
Design and symbolism
  • "and to the south, a dead soldier on the north" - I don't think this can be right. The officer is on the S side, the dead figure on the N.
  • Yes, you're right. I think I got confused in re-writing it with "facing south" (as the officer does).
  • "and the present Royal Arms with the Artillery's cannon badge" - what is the "present" doing?
  • Pass. Gone.
  • "These memorials frequently used abstract, beautiful designs" - not sure the "beautiful" is necessary, particularly as you've got it twice, just above, in "beautiful death".
  • It is straight from the sources, but I take your point.
  • "the entire effect reflected by the silence that traditionally surrounds ceremonies at the Cenotaph" - is "reflected" quite the right word here? "enhanced"?
  • I'll take that.
  • "The faceless, heavily laden statue of the fallen soldier appears less at rest than tired" - "tired" seems a rather odd word to use here, given that it depicts a dead man. "overcome/exhausted/oppressed"?
  • And that.
  • "the memorial can be felt to speak to its audience about the experience of war in a way that the Cenotaph, for example, does not" - says who? This does seem to me to shade into an opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and quite a bold one at that! Could it be attributed, or recast as a quote?
  • Done.
Critical reception
  • "The memorial enjoyed a higher profile in the 21st century" - given that the memorial's quality and significance had been recognised in the late 20th century, and that in the 21st, it is generally considered one of the greatest memorials, I wonder if, "The memorial enjoyed a still higher profile in the 21st century" works?
  • Sure.
Later history
  • "the RAWCF and Jagger parted on very good terms, the committee exceptionally pleased with the final memorial" - this appears to be contradicted by the second sentence of Critical reception which reads, "several members of the RAWCF committee and others were displeased by the design and by the dead soldier in particular". Perhaps, "the majority of the committee were exceptionally pleased" or some such?
  • I've re-worded this to be clear that it was a minority.
  • "completed in time for Remembrance Day" - link Remembrance Day? I don't think it's been mentioned before.
  • "including the Wellington Arch, a statue of the Duke of Wellington, the Machine Gun Corps Memorial, and the more modern Australian and New Zealand memorials" - not sure these all need listing again as they're in the first para. of Design and symbolism.
  • Fair point.

It's a grand article, and good to see Hchc watching its progress. Delighted to Support when you've had an opportunity to consider the above comments. KJP1 (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: Thanks very much the loan of the fine-toothed comb (and for the Pevsner snippet). I think I've addressed everything. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you have and I’m pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Royal_Artillery_Memorial/archive1&oldid=988911130"