Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tower Hill 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2018 [1].

Tower Hill Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I bring you (just for a change!) another war memorial. This one is dedicated to merchant seamen in both world wars who lost their lives as a result of enemy action and have "no grave but the sea". It is one of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's memorials to the missing, and the CWGC's only monument in London. Anyone following my project will have already guessed that this is another work of Sir Edwin Lutyens (who was far from happy that his first design was rejected!). I learnt a lot while researching this and I hope you find it an interesting read worthy of FA status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks a great article, and I'll doubtless come back to this soon. In the meantime, something that jumped out at a skim was the "Plaques bearing the names of the dead from the RMS Lusitania, the largest single loss of life commemorated on the Mercantile Marine Memorial"—it took a re-read to get the precise meaning. Could it be clarified slightly? (Perhaps something like, "Plaques bearing the names of the dead from the RMS Lusitania, the largest single loss of life to be commemorated on the Mercantile Marine Memorial", or something like that? Although of course up to you.) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A thorough and most readable article: rather moving, indeed. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and Support - Pleased to pick up the source review for this one. It'll take me until later in the week due to work commitments. KJP1 (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography
  • Geurst - Worldcat, and the Google Books link, give Rotterdam rather than Amsterdam, as the publication location. Apart, from this, super-picky, point, the bibliography looks absolutely fine.
  • I'll check the address on the copyright page when I have the book in front of me.
Citations - online
  • Source 49 - Should we note that The Times is paywalled? Although the snippet gives enough to support the content.
  • Apart from the above quibble, all the online sources check out and support the content.
Citations - offline
  • Fortunately, I've enough of these to allow the necessary spot-checking, so this may be done more quickly than I thought. To follow.
  • You'll probably find that the bulk of it is based on Skelton, Pevsner, and Ward-Jackson (and the NHLE), with background and a few details from the others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now done spot checks on the ones I have. All fine, as I knew they would be. So pleased to sign off on the Source Review and add my Support, as a fine addition to the canon. KJP1 (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim , one comment[edit]

Happy to support, I just wondered whether the queen's first use of the medium should have a capital, since it refers to a specific named queen? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Jim! My understanding is that it wouldn't be incorrect to use Queen as a proper noun but I tend not to. Cf. "commissioners" elsewhere in the article and probably other examples; also I think we'd frown on "the Admiral" for example. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • On "queen" above I agree that it should be capitalised when it refers to a specific individual, but I think it would be better to change "the queen's" to "her".
Green tickY - Done, as suggested.
  • You say at the beginning that it consists of two memorials and then refer to a third. This seems to imply that the third is not part of the memorial but it is not clear.
Green tickY - flipped the lead a bit which hopefully makes this clearer.
  • "thousands of war memorials were built across Britain and other countries affected" No change needed, but it seems unjust that Austro-Hungarian casualties got no memorials - so I have been told - because the country ceased to exist.
I didn't know that. Certainly sad if true, but I'd be surprised if they don't have any.
  • "with the loss of over 17,000 lives" I think this should be in the lead - and why is the number of ships lost in brackets there? It is not a subsidiary point.
Green tickY - Done and Done.
  • How many were listed on the memorial? (I see that you give a total for WW2 and both wars, but I think you should for WW1 (unless I have missed it).
Green tickY - Done, the HE site says 12,000 named casualties. I've put it after the Lusitania, where it seemed to fit.
Green tickY - Done and Done.
  • "The unveiling ceremony was broadcast live on the radio in the queen's first use of the medium. Despite taking place in torrential rain, the unveiling ceremony was attended by a large crowd, who cheered the queen as she was driven away." Two more "queens" which should be capitalised in my opinion but I know there are different views on this.
Red XN - If it were mine, I'd have done it too, but I think Harry's view is clear from the discussion with Jim above and, as far as I understand it, it's a preference issue. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A service was planned for 17 October 2017, organised by several maritime organisations and due to be attended by 400 people, including foreign diplomats and Anne, Princess Royal, to mark 100 years since the introduction of the convoy system. The service was cancelled at short notice as the organisers were unable to obtain permission for a road closure which was required for the event." This is a bit strange. It surely would have been a major scandal with headlines in every newspaper and questions in Parliament yet the only reference to it I can find is the Times report saying it was cancelled because the City of London refused the organisers' demand that a road be closed because Princess Anne was attending. I would delete unless you can find other sources.
  • A first class article. A few niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dudley Miles: I agree it is strange that the only report on the cancellation comes from The Times. I suspect (a bit speculatively) that this is because there is a degree of WWI centenary 'fatigue' evident in some quarters. It is sad that the event was cancelled, but clearly it wasn't a major scandal (the UK parliament was in recess from 14 September 2017 to 9 October 2017 for the party conference season, hence no questions in parliament). It was a minor scandal that President Macron did not attend the recent commemorative event in Amiens Cathedral (for example), and this did receive coverage in much British and French media, but maybe not as much as you might expect. It will be interesting to see how the end of the centenary range of commemorations (in November 2018) play out in the world's media compared to the coverage at the start of these four years (in August 2014). Looking at the bigger picture, there are lots of war memorials and lots of commemoration events. In my experience, whenever there is some other news story that week or day that is judged 'more' newsworthy, then the coverage of that can swamp coverage of commemoration news. (At the time of the cancellation story in The Times, the newspapers were mostly covering stories relating to the Conservative Party annual conference.) It would have been more of a story if Prince William, Prince Charles or the Queen had been attending, but then the council likely would have granted permission in such circumstances. The fact that the event was to be attended by Princess Anne shows that this memorial is, in the larger scheme of things, considered a relatively minor memorial. It is only because I try and look for such events for each memorial that has an article that I even found this article about the cancellation (and suggested that the news be included). I would, however, suggest that leaving this out is censoring the historical record. It is precisely in places like this article that aspects like this can be noted and not forgotten. The article in The Times states that: "The 400 invited guests due at the event on October 17 included 30 ambassadors and high commissioners of countries whose seafarers are among the 36,102 names on the memorial." That is an indication that plans were far advanced for this event. If it had taken place, it would have received coverage. But cancellations, for obvious reasons, don't always get the same amount of coverage, as seen here. If you think having it in the main body of the text is undue weight, than maybe make it a footnote. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC) The only additional coverage I could find was one of the organisers speaking on BBC Radio Sussex about the cancellation, see here. Can someone listen to what is said there and see if that might give pointers to more sources, or even if that can be used as a source? Carcharoth (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest moving to a footnote and specifying "According to a report in The Times". Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles - No, I can't find any other mentions either, so have put it as a footnote, as suggested. Harry can, of course, move it back in, if preferred. I do hope the amendments address your concerns. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Dudley Miles do you have anything further to add? Sarastro (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have replied on the last point. The nominator does not appear to have replied to my other ones. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could do some editing of the article at the weekend to address some points, but not earlier (I've worked with the nominator on a couple of these articles). @HJ Mitchell: (the nominator) in case they are around. Carcharoth (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Carcharoth, did you get a chance to do anything on the w/e? Harry doesn't seem to have been around for some weeks. I'm loathe to archive this as abandoned but it's been open a long time and either Harry or someone else has to pick up the ball if it's to be promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, Carcharoth, HJ Mitchell - I'd guess Harry's busy off-wiki. I'd be pleased to have a stab at addressing Dudley Miles' queries if that would help. KJP1 (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now done, in ways that I hope will meet with Harry's approval. KJP1 (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thanks for sorting this out. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, tks guys -- I'll try and have another look soon with a view to closing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2018 (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/Tower_Hill_Memorial/archive1&oldid=858548903"