Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rochdale Cenotaph

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Rochdale Cenotaph[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Rochdale Cenotaph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Rochdale has a population of over 100k and yet I'd wager that most non-Brits have never heard of it and most Brits couldn't find it on a map. Pevsner charmingly describes it as a "drab town". Still, it has a Lutyens war memorial, so here I am. The good people of Rochdale raised a handsome budget and the project proceeded smoothly compared to some of his others, so they were rewarded with one Lutyens' grander and more elegant designs. The article is shorter than some of the others because lack of controversy leaves less to write about, but I think it's comprehensive and I'm hoping to take it to FAC. Any feedback would be much appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough trouble finding places in Britain that I have heard about on a map. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Britain's not a huge place by Aussie standards. Point your finger at one of the non-green bits in the right sort of area and you probably won't be far off! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review
  • All images are appropriately licensed. I would have used the image down the bottom in the infobox, but it is missing the remembrance stone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cannot see anything wrong with it. I was a little surprised at the Bibliography coming before the citations. The MOS (WP:FNNR) would have them the other way around. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I don't know where I picked up that style but I've used it in almost all my articles. On the rare occasion that it's been questioned, I've always relied on WP:CITEVAR ("follow the established style, even if you think it's mad") and FA? 2c ("use any style you like, just do it consistently"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying here is, just because the rules don't explicitly forbid something, you're gonna do it with the wind in your hair and all flags flying, just because it's sorta cool, sorta like scratching "HJ Mitchell was here" on the article, sorta like.. graffiti? I mean, of course I won't/can't oppose, but for the record, it's something like that, right? if so, then I have to admit, it's really cool.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the MoS is a little too concerned with forbidding and prescribing, and if some of the more obscure parts ever saw the light of day we'd find that they were added on a whim by a single editor and aren't actually backed by consensus; it's just that most people don't care enough (they're busy writing articles, instead of telling other people how to write articles). Anyway, I copied the style from some other article years back and I've used it ever since. I guess 'putting my mark on it' has something to do with it but it wasn't my main motivation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MOS-blaming may be appropriate for some nitpicks, but this isn't a nitpick. It's a glaring discrepancy involving major sections. No one else will argue with your idiosyncratic method (and I will stop after this post) because 1) as a rule reviewers very often don't even look at citations/references, and 2) everyone knows it's a losing argument (not expressly forbidden). Unwatching, good luck with your nom.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd always done it the other way around, not because of the MOS, but because that it the way it appears in books. Only when I saw it done the other way did I think to look it up in the MOS. No big. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Linghi[edit]

  • Boorman in Bibliography but not in the Citations.
  • The History sentence contains exactly one sentence of History. I would suggest renaming the "Commissioning" to either "History" or "Commissioning and dedication", move the one sentence about dedication up to that section, delete the stuff about "The earl was a descendant " and the Manchester cenotaph, and rename the "History" section "Historic designation" or similar.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Linghi, thanks for looking. Well spotted on Boorman. Citing him now. With respect to the history section, it's more than just a sentence of history. The details of the unveiling are part of the history, and the reason Derby was chosen to do the honours is very relevant (there's a lot more that could be said about Derby; he's synonymous with recruiting in WWI and with the pals battalions). Likewise, a later decision to preserve it and a still later decision to upgrade its preservation status are part of its history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by auntieruth[edit]

  • Solely on text. It looks good. It will probably run aground at FAC on MS:Caps for the same reason as the Norwich article. So when that is resolved, perhaps carry it over....? I don't have much opinion on bib/citation thing except that I usually expect it the other way around. In some countries, publication of the bibliography comes first. Before the text. As an historian, I like that, but I have no problem flipping to the end of the book to see the sources, either.... just my two cents! auntieruth (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite a support yet[edit]

Looking good; not quite a support from me yet, but all minor issues, listed below:

  • "pylon" - this is technically a correct term, but - particularly in the lead - will probably mislead the average reader, as the most common BritEng usage is "electricity pylon". Is there an alternative word that could be used?
    • I guess we could go with tower or pillar or something. You're right that electricity pylon is probably the first thing most people will think of, but I don't think it's a leap to infer the meaning of a tower that supports something else.
  • "A public in meeting in February 1919" > "A public meeting in February 1919"?
    • Fixed!
  • "a consensus for both a monumental memorial, a fund for the families of wounded servicemen, and the appointment of Lutyens to design the monument." - feels like three thing, rather than the two that a "both" would imply?
    • Tweaked.
  • "adjacent to the Town Hall " - as written, should definitely be in lower case I think (and is indeed in lower case later on)
    • Also tweaked.
  • "and Edward Stanley, 17th Earl of Derby unveiled" > "and Edward Stanley, 17th Earl of Derby, unveiled "
    • Done.
  • "The memorial today is a Grade I listed building, having been upgraded in 2015 when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and all were granted listed building status or had their listing renewed." could simply be "The memorial today is a Grade I listed building, having been upgraded in 2015 when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection"."? No need to describe what happened to the other memorials in the lead for this one...
    • Done.
  • "Lutyens designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations; the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing, the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world; and the Stone of Remembrance, which appears in all large Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries and in several of Lutyens' civic memorials, including Rochdale's." - the article has some dating issues here. It is a background section, and the next section begins in February 1919. The Cenotaph hasn't been built by then, the Thiepval Memorial is a decade away etc., but the style implies that it has already happened (as background) by 1919.
  • "almost three months to the day since the armistice," - this implies it was deliberate, but not sure if that is correct?
    • I doubt it was deliberate, probably just the first practical date after the dust had settled. I don't see the implication, but it can go if you feel strongly.
  • " which involved the demolition of Manor House to be replaced by a cenotaph and a Stone of Remembrance" - "to be replaced" felt awkward here
    • Copy-edited.
  • " Standing on the plain first tier" > " Standing on the plain, first tier"?
    • I'm not sure that's necessary with "plain first" (but would be with "first plain").
  • " second smaller tier" > " second, smaller tier"
    • Done.
  • "The flags stand to either side of a second smaller tier with a semi-column at either end, which culminates in a yet smaller plinth supporting a catafalque on which lies a sculpture of a draped human figure, a similar design to Lutyens' Midland Railway War Memorial in Derby." - becomes quite a long sentence by the end
    • Fixed (and added a detail—it was actually based on the MR's).
  • "They were rejected for Whitehall's Cenotaph in favour of fabric flags" - rejected by whom?
    • By the cabinet, but I'm not sure that's relevant to Rochdale (though Lutyens' disappointment at the decision and his use of the device elsewhere is, I think).
  • "made by the readers of the Rochdale Observer" are the italics correct here?
    • Yes, italics are standard for the names of newspapers.
  • " The earl was a descendant of a local family which had been involved in local politics for generations, and he himself served in various public offices during the First World War, including Director General of Recruiting, and later Secretary of State for War, before being appointed Britain's ambassador to France at the end of the war. " - another quite long sentence
    • Copy-edited.
  • "noting its visual relationship" capitalisation
    • Sorry if I'm being dense, but what's wrong with the capitalisation here?
  • "about 92% " - I think the MOS would prefer "92 percent"
    • Done.
  • "Amery, Colin; et al. (1981)" - I'd expect the "et al" to be specified/expanded here (or Amery to be defined as the editor, etc.)
    • There's a very long list of authors that would take up an inordinate amount of space and wouldn't really help the reader, which is why I just went with the first on the list.

Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I'll get to these over the bank holiday weekend. I've got some other tinkering I need to do here as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hchc2009: Apologies for the delay. I've addressed most of these now. I need to think about the chronology thing but I'll be back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Content to support at A-Class. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments - count me a non-Brit who hasn't heard of Rochdale until now!

  • One duplicate link for the Rochdale Town Hall at the bottom of the article - there's a tool here you can use to find them done by auntieruth55
  • The link to cenotaph should be moved to the first occurrence (in the Background section) 'done by auntieruth55
  • The fact that the structure was modified to include the casualties of the Second World War seems to be dropped in without specific mention (i.e., the text is given, but the history section jumps from the unveiling of the Cenotaph to its designation in 1985 as a Grade II listed building) - when was this done? Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy I couldn't find the dates of the addition of the WWII notation in his sources. I did fix the other two things you mentioned. HJ Mitchell seems to be MIA. auntieruth (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he made a few edits today, so maybe a @HJ Mitchell: is in order. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -
    • All tool checks ok (i.e. no dabs, external links ok, no ref consolidation errors, no repeat links, Earwig tool reveals no issues [1]) (no action req'd).
    • I read over it and couldn't see any major issues which would preclude it from promotion. Anotherclown (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Rochdale_Cenotaph&oldid=1143876756"