Talk:Royal Naval Division War Memorial/Archive 1

Finished, I think!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

@Ham II and Another Believer: I think I've exhausted the source material on this now and it's looking in decent shape. It needs a little bit of polishing because I didn't write it all strictly in order, but once I've finished that I intend to nominate it for A-class and then FAC in due course so I'd really appreciate any thoughts either of you had on this draft (and those of anyone else who happens to be watching the page). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks for your work on this article. I'll keep an eye on it, and will likely request a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors (which I do before most nominations) soon have submitted a request for a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, for additional eyes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. My experience of the GoCE is that they tend to focus on making very poor articles comprehensible rather than polishing prose to FA level, but we'll see if anything comes of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Only minor copyediting points from me. Another superb article. Ham II (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Link London somewhere, perhaps in the infobox?
  • Done.
• Horse Guards Parade in Westminster, central London – I'd say it's in Whitehall rather than Westminster; if "Westminster" is meant as the City of Westminster that's something I'd avoid. "Horse Guards Parade in central London..." would also be fine by me.
  • If we go by the map on the Westminster article, Whitehall appears to be part of Westminster, and I think using Whitehall to refer to both the street and the area in the same article would be confusing for those not familiar with London geography.
    • That map seems seems to have boundaries made up for this Wikivoyage page; it also includes St James's, Belgravia and Victoria. As that map isn't used on the Wikivoyage page any more but is used misleadingly on Westminster and the equivalent article in several other languages it should be deleted. I'd still rather "Westminster" were left out, and I think "Horse Guards Parade in central London" would be best for the sake of tight prose.
• proposed by the Royal Navy for Trafalgar Square – I'd put a comma after this clause.
  • Done.
• who died of disease – This doesn't sound idiomatic to me.
  • It's "died+of+disease" quite a common term, especially in military contexts.
    • Fair enough; I clearly don't know the military contexts.
• Link Second World War?
  • I'm not averse to it, but that's on the list (wherever it is) of commonly understood terms that shouldn't be linked.
• where it was unveiled in 2003; – I'd have a full stop here instead of the semicolon.
  • But that would leave the next sentence as a fragment.
    • "Churchill's grandson read out his grandfather's speech from the original ceremony" seems like a full sentence to me.
• The Royal Naval Division (RND) was a land-based formation under the command of the Admiralty. It was created by Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty (the government minister responsible for the Royal Navy) – Would the gloss on then Admiralty be better in the first sentence than the second? And how necessary is the gloss if readers can follow the link to Admiralty?
  • I wanted specifically to clarify the first lord (especially in relation to the First Sea Lord), and to make it clear that he was a politician, not a naval officer, so I think this is helpful.
    • Ignore this; I carelessly misread "minister" as "ministry".
• The following year, the division was one of two (the other being the 29th Division) which formed the British contingent – I'd abbreviate this to "The following year the RND, alongside the 29th Division, formed the British contingent".
  • Done.
• After suffering heavy casualties at Gallipoli, it was evacuated in 1916 – I take it that "it" is the division? It wasn't clear on first reading.
  • Good point. Done.
• The memorial with the Admiralty Extension building in the background (the ivy to the left is growing on the Admiralty Citadel) → "The memorial with the Admiralty Extension in the background. (The ivy to the left is growing on the Admiralty Citadel.)"
  • We're not supposed to put full stops in captions unless they're full sentences (don't ask me why, I agree with you, but this commonly comes up at FAC)
    • How weird! How about a semicolon, then, and I still think that "building" could be left out to tighten the prose.
• sculpted (in the Design section) doesn't feel right; "carved"?
  • Done.
• Does balustrade need to be linked when it appears for a third time?
  • No, moved to the first mention. Good spot.
• The top of the plinth contains, on the south and west sides [etc.], reliefs → "At the top of the plinth, on the south and west sides [etc.], are displayed reliefs"
  • Done.
• I'd use small caps consistently for almost all the inscriptions, including 1914 and 1918, but make an exception for Rupert Brooke's poem which I'd quote as a poem. Similarly, I'd include the line breaks for all the inscriptions except the poem; they're given in Ward-Jackson's book.
  • Done, minus the breaks. I usually omit the breaks except between complete sentences otherwise it starts to look untidy, and the breaks are usually there because of space constraints.
• Eric Broadbent, a former army officer and previous collaborator of Lutyens' – What did they previously collaborate on?
  • Brittanic House on Finsbury Circus among others (I think), but I kind of thought that would be out of scope.
    • If it's only a brief list I don't think it would be out of place, but it's not essential.
• By far the largest contributor was Lord Rothermere—owner of the Daily Mail newspaper—whose son, Vere Harmsworth, was killed – I'd replace the dashes here with commas, change "owner" to "the owner" and remove the commas around "Vere Harmsworth".
  • But we need the commas to make it a subordinate clause, which means we need the parenthetical dashes; there's a term for the definite article in front of "owner" (I forget what it's called) but it's a stylistic preference and I generally don't use it.
    • Not sure why "whose son Vere Harmsworth was killed" can't be a single clause, but I might be on shaky ground here. You're right that the "the" is purely stylistic preference; point taken as in this instance it isn't terrible style without.
• problems were discovered with the structure—the bowl was not perfectly horizontal – I'd change the dash to a semicolon.
  • Done.
• meaning water cascaded → "meaning that water cascaded"
  • Done.
• Can't decide whether in situ needs to be in italics.
  • I had a similar thought, but I think it's a common enough term that we can consider it adopted into English.
• formed the opinion → "decided"
  • Done.
• Surprised to see no Pevsner in the bibliography. Is there anything in either the 1998 volume of London 5: East or the 2003 volume of London 6: Westminster?
  • Me too. It gets the shortest of footnotes in the 2003 edition (because it hadn't been reinstalled by the time of publication), and no mention at all in the 1950s London 2 . @Ham II: Thanks very much for looking it over! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @HJ Mitchell: My pleasure! Ham II (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

Guild of Copy Editors review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following was posted to my user talk page, so I am copying and pasting here for review by those who have worked on this article more than me:

Hello, Another Believer – Happy New Year! Because this article was quite well written as it was, I only made a few changes. Out of respect for your wording choices, I refrained from re-wording a few sentences that would constitute only slight stylistic changes. I thought I'd mention them here and see what you thought.

1) In the first paragraph in Royal Naval Division War Memorial#Design is the following sentence:

• At the base of the obelisk, on all four sides, are relief carvings of the Royal Naval Division's insignia.

I thought, in reality, the relief carvings are not only at the base of the obelisk but on the base. I thought it would be nice to avoid the parenthetical phrase in the middle, "on all four sides". The sentence might read more smoothly as follows:

• On all four sides of the base of the obelisk are relief carvings of the Royal Naval Division's insignia.

or:

• All four sides of the base of the obelisk contain relief carvings of the Royal Naval Division's insignia.

I kind of like the second option. What do you think?

2) Later in the Design section you provide Rupert Brooke's poem. It seemed to me that the lines of the poem were unnecessarily far apart from each other, that is, had too much space between them. Is there any reason they need to be spaced so far apart?

3) Twice, once in the second paragraph in the lead, and once in the first paragraph in Royal Naval Division War Memorial#Background, you begin a sentence with "As well as...". I don't recall ever seeing this type of construction, with the "as well as" at the beginning of a sentence. I wonder if that is more a British English construction than American English. Of course, because of the topic, the article is, and should be, written using British English. I just wanted to point it out. I suppose it is all right, but I would use "In addition to" for the first one and "In addition to" or "Besides" for the second one. But if you're happy with the way these sentences read, then by all means leave them as they are.

4) The first two sentences of the Royal Naval Division War Memorial#Design section are:

• The memorial is carved entirely from Portland stone. It consists of an obelisk rising from a circular bowl, supported by a moulded square base which connects it to a second, shallower bowl and then to a large square plinth.

These are fine as they are. If you want them to flow a little more smoothly, you might consider joining them as follows:

• The memorial, carved entirely from Portland stone, consists of an obelisk rising from a circular bowl, supported by a moulded square base which connects it to a second, shallower bowl and then to a large square plinth.

or:

• Carved entirely from Portland stone, the memorial consists of an obelisk rising from a circular bowl, supported by a moulded square base which connects it to a second, shallower bowl and then to a large square plinth.

I kind of prefer the second option. But it's really up to you.

5) In the first paragraph in the lead is the following sentence:

• Progress was initially slow as the committee considered incorporating its memorial into a larger one proposed by the Royal Navy for Trafalgar Square, but when the navy abandoned the project in favour of three separate memorials in the south coast of England, the RND's committee decided to proceed independently.

I don't know British English usage with regard to geography, but to my American ears, "in the south coast" sounds odd. We would always say "on the south coast", or "in the south". I notice that in the Royal Naval Division War Memorial#Commissioning section, you have "across the south coast":

• In the end, the navy opted for three monuments across the south coast of England and the committee, keen to have its memorial in London, decided to proceed independently.

Would you consider changing the sentence in the lead to one of these? –

• three separate memorials in the south of England
• three separate memorials along the south coast of England

6) Near the beginning of the first paragraph in the lead is the following sentence:

• Shortly after the end of the war, former members formed a committee, chaired by one of the division's leading officers, Brigadier-General Arthur Asquith, to raise funds for a memorial.

(You will have seen by now that I moved the adverbial phrase to the beginning of the sentence.) I was trying to figure out a way to avoid "former members formed a committee", with "former" and "formed" in such close proximity. I also thought some readers might be puzzled by the word "members", associating "members" more with an association than a military division. But if we add "of the division" after "former members" (which would, at one and the same time, clarify "members" and put more distance between "former" and "formed"), then we probably should not repeat "division". However, if we change "one of the division's leading officers" to "one of its leading officers", we create ambiguity because "its" could refer to both "division" and "committee". I even tried passive voice ("a committee was formed"), but that didn't sound right, either. So, I left it as it was. Do you have any ideas? Perhaps we could ask Iridescent for his thoughts.

Well, that's all. You don't really have to make any further changes. These are just slight stylistic options. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Corinne for your time and attention; fresh eyes always spot new things! And thanks Another Believer for copying Corinnes's comments here. I've made a handful of tweaks to address the ones I think most need attention, especially "in the south coast", which was a typo. Thanks again, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for reviewing and updating accordingly. What a great article! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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.