Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Devon County War Memorial/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2016 [1].

Devon County War Memorial edit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second of my series of war memorial articles to make it to FAC, following the promotion of Northampton War Memorial. This one is a smaller monument (a single cross on the cathedral green in Exeter) but it has an interesting history, not least the contrast Exeter's own war memorial five minutes' walk away. The article has had some very useful feedback from a GA review and an A-class review and I think it's up to scratch, but all comments are welcome. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (in no particular order) / Singora edit

  • 1. You have "including a baths"
    • I believe this is correct when referring to Roman baths.
  • 2. You have "a set of steps and a platform leading to the memorial which emphasises". Subject-verb agreement blah blah blah.
    • I've re-worded this slightly.
  • 3. You have "described by Lutyens researcher Tim Skelton". Possessives, etc.
    • And this.
  • 4. RE: "all 44 of his free-standing memorials in England". Should you not add the number (44) to your previous article?

Singora (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Singora. As you can probably see these articles are all similarly structured, but I'd like to think it got more refined with practice. I've got another four in the queue and more that I'm still planning to write so your feedback will affect more than just the one article. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC) This article is in fine shape, Harry. I've tweaked some minor grammar, but feel free to revert if it isn't to your taste. I only have a few points:[reply]

  • the quotation from Lutyens appears twice, I think once would be enough.
    • Agreed. (How did I miss that?!)
  • I think it should be just baths, drop the "a"
    • I'm not sure but I don't feel strongly either way, so done
  • strengthens → strengthening?
    • done
  • I think WP:FNNR indicates that general references are listed after rather than before short citations
    • And WP:CITEVAR says I can use any style I want; the MoS is full of contradictions and arbitrary dictats.
Thanks for the review, PM. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, always a pleasure. I like the work you are doing on memorials. Inspires me to improve the articles on some of my local ones. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now...with a nice G&T now the cool change has rolled in...but I can't stop thinking of this....notes below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the two "memorials" in the first sentence, yet I can't think of a way round this, so doubt it is actionable....
The only way around it I can think of is to completely rewrite the opening, but I think that's a bit drastic for a relatively minor prose flaw, and I think the way it's currently written is the most natural way to get all the information in at the beginning.
Agreed.
in alignment with the altar. - err, means what - level with it...pointing at it....?
This has come up before so it's obviously an issue but it makes perfect sense to me: as I understand it, if you stood in front of the memorial and looked in the direction it was facing, you would be looking at the cathedral's altar if the cathedral didn't have walls. Parallel with the altar perhaps?
Hmm, actually that doesn't work either really. Maybe 'aligned' is most apt. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
was of the opinion that - why not just "felt that"?
Dunno. Maybe I just felt like being wordy.
At the unveiling ceremony, Lord Fortescue estimated that 11,600 men and women from Devon had been killed while serving in the war -there are two "estimated"s here. Possibly the first one can be changed for a better verb. I doubt that he sat down with an abacus and calculated the number of dead at the ceremony. If he just said it then why not "announced"?
How's this?

Otherwise looks just fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Bounder edit

  • The phrase "architect Sir Edwin Lutyens" comes across a little as a false title; it should probably also have a definite article, as this is in British English.
    • I have mixed feelings about this, but I think it works here so done
  • A bit of local knowledge, as I was raised in the area, Castle Drogo is to the west of Exeter (see Google Maps).
    • Good point, done.
  • You twice refer to the/a "cloister", but then switch to "cloisters": it's a tiny point, but was there a reason?
    • Nope. Fixed.
  • More local knowledge, Haytor is to the south west of Exeter (see Google Maps again).
    • Fixed
  • Do we need "the heir to the throne" as you've already told us he was "later King Edward VIII"?
    • Probably not; gone.
  • Footnotes 1 and 12 need a retrieval date.
    • Done.

Aside from these very minor points, a very informative and enjoyable article in what is becoming an enjoyable series. Thanks and all the best The Bounder (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bounder: Thanks again for the review. I'm glad you're enjoying the series; there are more to come! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All happy now - excellent work. All the best The Bounder (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Smalljim edit

I've corrected a couple of minor typos to this fine article, but I do have a few other queries. I admit that some of them may be a bit nitpicky – feel free to ignore those :-)

  • In the lead you mention "the two committees", but only say what one of them was. Maybe "...but the Exeter and Devon committees failed to work together, resulting..." would be clearer.
    • Fixed.
  • Although Lutyens himself wrote that his monument was "out of one stone", we normally speak of blocks of granite when they are have been quarried, as this one was. The lead could read "... a simple cross hewn from a single block of granite quarried ..."
    • Done.
  • I'm a little concerned about the statement that the memorial is "just" to the west of the cathedral. It's actually something like 210 feet (64m.) distant from the west front (measured on this map). I think this word would be less of a problem if it was supported by the photos, but neither of them give an impression of the distance (or of Jellicoe's processional way). This panorama shows it centre right, but it's not clear. There may be something better on Commons, or I might have some photos that show the relationship – I'll have a look.
    • I don't really think this is an issue; it's the only object between the cathedral facade and the close, and it's very prominent. (I took the photos in the article and almost all the ones on Commons)
  • Wouldn't it sound better for the cross to stand on its plinth, rather than sit on it?
    • Meh, done.
  • There's a problem with the lead text "A processional way was added, leading to the cathedral close from the cathedral itself", and similar wording in the body. Apart from the fact that in Exeter today Cathedral Close is the postal address for the pedestrianised road on the north-east side of the cathedral, and Jellicoe's way doesn't go that way, it's unclear because the cathedral close (uncapitalised) surrounds much of the cathedral. Something like "a processional way between the cathedral's west front and the memorial" would be more accurate.
    • I don't think that would be more accurate; the processional way does lead to the close, past the memorial, even if it doesn't serve all of it.
      • There's still a problem here. Are we disagreeing over what is the "close" or what is Jellicoe's Processional Way? I understand the Way branches off Cathedral Yard (not Cathedral Close, which is on the other side of the green) via a platform on the left (north) of the memorial, and it then descends several sets of shallow steps to the large cathedral forecourt. See the photo I've uploaded: the group of people are walking across the platform, having just left Cathedral Yard (see an A-Z). This is in accordance with the Details section at the end of the listed building text. The Processional Way is the forecourt, steps and platform, but that's not what the article says at present.  —SMALLJIM  00:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a recent stub – Cathedral Close, Exeter – that's not very good yet, but could be linked since it's highly relevant.
    • Done.
  • At the unveiling ceremony, "Lord Fortescue estimated..." Presumably this was in his speech, as was, I assume, what "he later stated". This should be made clear.
    • He didn't give the later figure at the speech; clarified.
  • Not sure about "around the western fringe of the cathedral" – "between the memorial and the cathedral" would be more accurate (the photo in the cited BBC ref makes this clear).
    • But that is the western fringe of the cathedral, and it's clear from the photo that they dug around the memorial rather than between it and the cathedral.
  • The remains of "several Roman buildings, including baths" could be linked to Isca Dumnoniorum#Roman.
    • If you can find a way to work that in that's not too much of an easter egg, I'd be happy to see it linked.

Hope these help.  —SMALLJIM  19:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses and being kind about the nitpicking. I've struck all but two related points, which I've commented further on above.  —SMALLJIM  00:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, regarding Casliber's query above about the cross being "aligned with the altar", Harvey's The Story of Exeter (p. 171) explains the alignment nicely as "It faces east, standing on a hypothetical line drawn from the high altar through the nave of the cathedral."  —SMALLJIM  16:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That explains things nicely; I've added the quote in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above, HJ. Just a few more comments after I looked at the topic again:

  • Heading "History and design" would be better as "Design and history" to match the order of those topics in the section
    • Okay, now we're being pedantic; sorry but I prefer it the way it is, and it's consistent with my other war memorial articles.
      • Struck - I did warn you :)
  • We have remarks about there not being enough funds to complete the cloister, and about the concerns that not much money was likely to be raised, though with its remaining funds (presumably after Lutyens' memorial was completed) the committee was able to help build the cross in France. I don't know where the money for the County War Memorial was actually raised from, or the amounts involved. If details are available, they should be included.
    • The funds were raised from donations (I've clarified this); there's nothing in any of the sources about the cost or the distribution of funds sadly.
      • OK, thanks for checking
  • I note that the War Memorials Trust donated just £50 [2] towards installing the railings in 2001 - is their grant really worth a mention considering that this sum must have been only a tiny proportion of the whole cost? The emphasis here should be on the reason for their installation – what about: "In 2001 a set of metal railings was erected around the foot of the memorial to combat problems with vandalism and anti-social behaviour; they were described by author Tim Skelton as "an unfortunate addition".[15][16]"
    • I think it's worth mentioning, especially since the reason for their installation came from the WMT, and I'd rather avoid ending the paragraph on a sour note if I can.
      • Hmm. Do we know that the WMT instigated the installation of the railings (if that's what you mean)? If their website page cited above is the only one that mentions this, it reads to me more like another body (Devon Council?) wanted the railings, approached the WMT for a grant and they gave a nominal amount.
        • The latter would be my guess (I don't think the WMT is in the business of instigating projects, just funding them). --HJM
      • Oh – I've just realised that we don't know that the railings were installed in June 2001 (the date of the WMT grant), unless Skelton says so. In fact the listed building description says they were erected in 2006.
        • Skelton doesn't specify (he just says 21st century) and he was published in 2008 so not much help; I've gone with HE's date. --HJM
  • File:ExeterCathedral-4.jpg is a bright and clear photo. It shows the relationship between the memorial and the cathedral and gives a good impression of the processional way. It also matches the photo of the cross in France (blue sky, white clouds). Should it be included as well as or instead of one of the others; or maybe, dare I suggest, even as the lead image?
    • As the lead image, definitely not; I want something that shows the whole cross from the front where the memorial is clearly the main subject. Leave it with me, though, and I'll look when I'm less sleep deprived.
  • Single sentence paragraphs are, I think, frowned upon. There are two here, and one with just two sentences.
    • I like nice fulsome paragraphs as much as the next copy editor, but combining unrelated sentences into one paragraph just because it looks pretty is likely to be more jarring to the reader than a short paragraph. ;)

Ah - there's more there than I intended when I started, sorry!  —SMALLJIM  00:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed, but it's my birthday on Saturday so I don't plan on being around for a few days; it would be lovely if we could have this wrapped up by then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll send you a card :) I've struck a couple of the points, but had to query the railings further.  —SMALLJIM  12:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan on being sober enough to read it! ;) I've addressed the railings. Is there anything else we need to resolve? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. I insist that you use this photo for the lead, since it's the most recent one available and therefore the most representative. Enjoy your birthday :)  —SMALLJIM  00:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the previous remark was not serious – I hope your hangover's not too bad, HJ. However, I do have reservations about the general "professional standard" of the prose: I think it would benefit from a quick polish by someone uninvolved. And my un-struck comments above are still problematical, IMO. However, I am not an expert in FAC, and (as I stated at the start) I do tend towards nitpicking, so I'm willing to concede these issues if the coordinators determine that they are not deal-breakers.  —SMALLJIM  11:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have specific concerns about the prose? The FAC instructions require actionable objections, and I don't feel that unspecified reservations are actionable. I'd also point out that Dank, one of our most experienced and respected copy-editors, has reviewed the prose and is supporting above. I'm happy to try and address specific concerns as I've done above and I've addressed several comments that didn't (imho) relate to the FA criteria, but this comment leaves me with nowhere to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine by me if people object to prose I've supported at FAC, but I'd like to see some examples. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know the prose doesn't have to win major prizes, but it should be noticeably better than the run of the mill article. And to me, this isn't. Now I know that what follows is not definitive and is probably contentious, but while searching for a way to articulate my concerns, I came across the text assessment tool at http://www.hemingwayapp.com (which is a link in WP:TECHNICAL). Plugging the article's text (sans headings and captions) into this tool gives a readability of Grade 17 (which it classifies as "Poor"), with 33 of the 50 sentences (66%) assessed as "very hard to read". For comparison, I checked a couple of architecture FAs at random. Capon Chapel gives Grade 14 ("OK") with 60/114 (53%) very hard to read sentences; Round Church, Preslav gives 13 ("OK") and 66/138 (48%). I also looked at what may be the shortest FA, Hurricane Irene (2005), which gave Grade 14, 19/36 (53%). I'm not claiming that these figures mean anything per se, but there is a clear gap here which may represent one of my concerns about the prose - that many of the sentences are too complex.

I've identified the semicolons as one centre of this complexity. There are ten in this text - that's more than the average usage in eleven paragraphs, and although that's not in itself a problem, I don't find that the way they're used is optimal. For example, the last sentence in the lead: "The memorial is a grade II* listed building; since 2015, all of Lutyens' war memorials in England have been protected by listed building status." I can't say this is wrong, but it isn't the clearest phrasing. The follow-on doesn't go where one expects it to, and it's a jerky half-break, emphasised by the comma just two words on. At a quick glance it's easy to miss the punctuation making it seem to say that it has been listed since 2015 (it was listed in 2009, so why don't we say that). This sentence is probably better split into two - as is its expanded version, the very last (one-sentence) paragraph. Maybe "The memorial has been a grade II* listed building since 2009. By 2015, all of Lutyens' war memorials in England had been protected by listed building status."

Consider "The remains of several Roman buildings, including baths, were discovered and re-buried due to lack of funds; the ruins were scheduled as an ancient monument." (Incidentally, how can lack of funds cause discovery?) This would be better as something like "The remains of several Roman buildings, including baths, were discovered. They were all re-buried due to lack of funds, and the site was scheduled as an ancient monument."

One more: "The railings were partly funded by a grant from the War Memorials Trust; they were intended to combat problems with vandalism and anti-social behaviour." It isn't immediately obvious that the "they" after the semicolon refers to the railings: it could refer to the Trust, which was the last thing mentioned. A simpler and clearer version would be "The railings, partly funded by a grant from the War Memorials Trust, were intended to combat problems with vandalism and anti-social behaviour."

Although these are all minor points in isolation, cumulatively they undermine the professional standard that we need here. There are also other problems that text assessment tools can't direct us to. For instance, "The cross has a diamond-shaped tapered shaft with chamfered arms, no wider than the base, close to the top to form a cross. The cross..." One can work out what this means, despite the two uses of the word "cross" in the sentence referring to different things, but at this level one should not have to. And one doesn't immediately know which use of the word is meant when it starts the next sentence - in fact it's back to the first meaning, not the nearest.

Here's an apparent unintentional non-sequitur: "The memorial was unveiled ... by Edward ... with Lutyens in attendance. Upon its completion, Lutyens said ..." Is this the completion of the unveiling (unlikely), or the completion of the memorial's construction, which obviously took place much earlier? In the next sentence we're unambiguously back at the unveiling, so why the jump back in time in between?

... I need to stop. Apologies for the delay in replying: it's taken me an age to work this up, yet I know there are people who are practised at spotting and fixing such issues quickly - hence my original suggestion of a "quick polish". I'd appreciate a comment from Dank or others regarding the appropriateness of these remarks: if the opinion is that they represent nothing more than my personal preferences, I'll know that FAC isn't an area that I should spend time in!  —SMALLJIM  17:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for feedback at WT:FAC#hemingwayapp.com. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The individual points you're making are completely appropriate to bring up at FAC, Jim. These are some of the things that I look for too, both when I'm reviewing at FAC and when I write TFA text, which is a summary of leads from FAs. You've picked out a couple of garden paths, one slightly ambiguous subject, and a word used to mean two different things in the same sentence. Many writing gurus would identify these as potential problems, and they recommend expending a reasonable amount of energy hunting them down and fixing them. I appreciate your work here, and agree with your points, and I suspect Harry does too. I'm not retracting my support, because I know that similar problems are somewhat common in FAs, and overall, I think readers can make out what Harry meant (assuming they know the vocabulary and the subject matter, or they're at least interested enough to find out, by clicking on links and using a dictionary app). - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I rate the app, given that its front page contains examples of "unreadable" writing that are perfectly normal English sentences; it essentially suggests using a ten-year-old's vocabulary, stripping out all adjectives and adverbs, and not using any punctuation besides full stops and the occasional comma. Nonetheless, you've raised some examples of writing that could certainly be improved and I'll have a look at tinkering with that over the next few days. I used to overuse dashes but it seems I've graduated to semicolons! Also, thanks for pointing me to Lest Devon Forgets; I ordered a copy and it arrived today so I'll likely be adding some more material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the app, but I wasn't using it for its designed purpose. It's obviously based on one or more of these readability tests. By applying these tests independently (via this website) a similar outcome is obtained, but the more detailed results provided there confirm that the difference in scores is almost solely due to sentence length; and that is not helped by those semicolons. You definitely deserve a few beers for your tolerance here!  —SMALLJIM  16:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've added some more background from Lest Devon Forgets and I've been tinkering with prose. As it happens, I've edited out all the semicolons. There's probably more tinkering required but it's Christmas Day and I really ought to get to my mother's! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Smalljim: I've been tinkering again this morning. Perhaps you could see what you think when you're back online after the festivities. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I must apologise for that unforeseen interruption! You've dealt with my substantive points and the remnants aren't worth pursuing. So, relying on my newly refined knowledge of FAC (partly gleaned from Dank's comments) I'll support now because I believe the article covers all the relevant aspects and the prose passes. The really good news is that I don't intend to follow your war cross FACs around the country ;-)  —SMALLJIM  21:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Harry wouldn't consider it stalking if you did, Jim, but in any case I expect he's taken all comments on board for future articles (as we should all try to do at FAC). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I wouldn't mind if you did, Jim. Much as nobody enjoys having their writing dissected, the name of the game is to get the best article we can. Regardless, Ian's right—this is only the second article in the series to make it to FAC and all the feedback gathered here will affect the articles that follow. I deliberately started with articles like this, on smaller less well-known memorials, so that I'll have had all the practice I can get by the time I get to the biggest ones and the the most important of them all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The real reason is that I'm tending to stay around Devon these days. But if you do get an FAC that's short of feedback, I'd be happy to come up with some modest comments if you drop me a line (are we allowed to do that?).  —SMALLJIM  20:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Harry, unless I missed it, looks like we still need the standard source review for formatting/reliability -- you can post a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. I'll ping Casliber and Peacemaker67 to see if they have time as I know they're both very experienced reviewers, and I'll list it at WT:FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • No issues with formatting/reliability though I personally use {{sfn}} to point refs to books. - FrB.TG (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2016 (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/Devon_County_War_Memorial/archive1&oldid=1075706030"