Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/North Eastern Railway War Memorial

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

North Eastern Railway War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Featured article candidates/North Eastern Railway War Memorial/archive1

Another war memorial! Other than London, York was the only city to have two major war memorials by Lutyens, one for the city itself and this one, for the men of the North Eastern Railway; this became the source of considerable controversy when the NER's memorial had ten times the budget of the city's and was built in a much more prominent location. All war memorials are poignant and fascinating but in my opinion this one stands out, both for its design and the story behind it, and this is one of the articles I'm particularly pleased with. I hope you find it equally interesting and I welcome any feedback! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support: Some very minor things in an interesting article. All but one of these are minor copyedit points, am happy to make these myself if that's an appropriate way to proceed. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: 4th sentence – not sure about the plural on NER; suggest just “The NER board voted ...”
Lead: last sentence: “...and is part of a ..”

Background: first paragraph: - suggest "2,236 men from the company had died on military service overseas; more were ..."
- Done.
Background: Second paragraph – unless I am simply missing it, the points about the Midlands Railway War memorial and the Southend-on-Sea memorial don’t seem to be supported by the linked (Historic England) reference.
- Leave this with me. It came from somewhere; let me figure out where. Probably Skelton.
Inception: 2nd paragraph – “envelop” not “envelope”
- Done.
Inception: 3rd paragraph - consider wikilinking “cable” to cablegram; my first thought on reading this sentence was that Lutyens dismissed the idea on a piece of rope.
- Done.
Inception: 3rd paragraph - Consider removing “the” from next sentence: “In February 1922, the secretary of ~~the~~ YAYAS ...”
- Done.
Inception: 3rd paragraph - “NER met with CR Peers” should read “C. R. Peers” per mos:initials
- Done.
Inception: 4th paragraph - suggest replacing “and for” with “ and with” in first sentence. Also, suggest “NER board” not “NER’s board”
- Done.
History: - Suggest “between 5,000 and 6,000 people” rather than “5-6,000”
- Done (sort of)
History: - The clause “attended the ceremony” seems redundant, how about just “civic officials and officers of the LNER and former NER, including Sir Ralph ...”
- Done.
History: - Last paragraph – “Heritage List for England ~~list~~ entries ~~were~~ updated ...”
- And done. Thanks very much for your comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments, leaning~~ Support

Copyedited a bit so pls let me know any concerns -- pretty happy with prose but no particular issues with Euryalus' suggestions either.
- Your edits are fine; thanks very much!
Not an expert on war memorials (I know 'em when I see 'em) but looks comprehensive and appropriately detailed.
Structure appears consistent with similar articles (still can't get my head around Bibliography before Citations but I think you knew that...!)
No obvious issues with sources or their formatting except, perhaps, should the third Historic England ref (FN17) use the same template as the first two?
- No, because that one is citing a press release from HE rather than an NHLE entry (but I know they look inconsistent).
Image licensing looks acceptable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always, Ian. Really appreciate you having a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Design: Last paragraph: "The 2,236 names are inscribed on panels which were originally affixed to the wall." implies that the panels are not current affixed to the wall, but there is no obvious mention of where they are now or why they were moved.
- They're not; apparently if you leave limestone in the Yorkshire weather for 100 years you lose some detail. It's mentioned further down in the history section so I've just left it at "were" here.
History: First sentence: "The North Eastern Railway War Memorial was finally constructed after Lutyens submitted modified designs to satisfy the Ancient Monuments Board..." this reads as repetitious of the third paragraph of the "Inception" section and the last paragraph of the lead for those reading linearly. Does it need a third mention?
- I've trimmed it slightly; it needs something to let the reader know where we are.
History: Second sentence: "A crowd of 5–6,000 people gathered for the ceremony, among them multiple civic officials and officers of the LNER and former NER attended the ceremony,..." I don't think you need the words "attended the ceremony" as this is implied by this sentence being about those who gathered for the ceremony. The whole sentence is also rather long, so consider splitting it in two, perhaps "A crowd of 5–6,000 people gathered for the ceremony, among them multiple civic officials and officers of the LNER and former NER. Notable attendees included Sir Ralph Wedgwood, chief officer of the LNER; the Sheriff of York; the lord mayors of Bradford, Hull, and York; and the Archbishop of York."
- I've removed that clause (it was left over from a previous rewrite) so I think the sentence is readable now (and I'm loathe to use "notable" in an article!).
See also: I've added York City War Memorial. It is linked in the lead but having read this article I now want to read that and would prefer not to have to hunt for the link. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you; the MoS doesn't, but the MoS is more concerned pednatry than being useful to readers. Still, it might come up later in this review or at FAC.

Thanks for looking, Chris! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: looks great, Harry, just a few minor suggestions/observations from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:LAYOUTEL, the Commons link should be at the top of the last section of the article
suggestion only: but I'd consider flipping the Bibliography and Citations sections per the example of WP:LAYOUT
Boorman should be before Borg in the Bibliography

Thanks very much, Rupert. I've fixed the alphabetisation, I appreciate the suggestion but I prefer it as it it, and I don't think that part of the MoS is supported by consensus; I may get round to starting a formal RfC on it but MoS discussions tend to get bogged down by a small number of editors with extremely strong opinions on the positioning of commas or floating boxes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder

All very nicely put together yet again. Some very minor points from me:

Is it worth having an image of the Southend-on-Sea War Memorial in the Background section to stop people diving away from the article for a look?
- I didn't put one in when I wrote it because I didn't want to risk the reader confusing the two but there are more photos of the NER memorial now so I think we can manage it.
In the image of the "Close-up of the Stone of Remembrance", it may be worth clarifying that it is the bit that stands behind the poppies: a newcomer to the topic with no knowledge of Lutyens' other memorials may think the large stones at the base of the obelisk are the "Stone of Remembrance"
- Fair point; I've added more detail to the caption.
Do we need the additional information 'famous for his remark "the lamps are going out".'? It seems a bit tangential to the NER memorial
- I think it's worth mentioning for anyone who can't place Grey's name and it explains his significance (beyond his connection to the NER) for anyone wondering why his speech is worth noting; the man seems to have had a gift for summing up the mood in short sentences like that.

I hope these are of help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you again, The Bounder. Thanks for your comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another excellent piece on Lutyns' memorials. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Checklink tool reports your external link may be out of order, can you look at that one get moment? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, same as last time; HE have changed the URL structure of their site. I've updated it with the new URL. Thanks Tom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.