Talk:Grey's Monument/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 15:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I will take on this review. I look forward to working with the nominator on this article. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Mertbiol, thanks so much for picking this up! I'll get round to responding shortly.  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  22:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

 * The lead section is too short and does not fully summarise the article. I suggest breaking the existing single paragraph into two and adding a third paragraph on the critical and public reactions to the monument.
 * I've added extra info to the lead.
 * I am not sure that "commemorate" is the best word to use, as a reader could easily assume that Grey had died by the time the monument was erected. (I suspect that the meaning of the word has subtly changed in the past 185 years.) The start of the second sentence might be better rephrased as: "It was built in 1838 in recognition of Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey..."
 * Good point, thanks. I've changed.
 * Please delete "(also known as Earl Grey)".
 * Done.
 * I suggest rephrasing the third sentence (starting "It was erected to acclaim Earl Grey for the passing...") to "In particular, it celebrates the passing of the Great Reform Act of 1832, one of Grey's most important legislative achievements."
 * I like that, have altered.
 * I suggest adding as a fourth sentence "The act reorganised the system of parliamentary constituencies and increased the number of those eligible to vote." or similar.
 * Done.
 * I suggest starting a new paragraph with "The monument is 133 feet (41 m) in total and consists of… "
 * Done.
 * I suggest rephrasing the next sentence starting: "The monument is 133 feet (41 m) in total" to "The monument is located at the junction of Grey, Grainger and Blackett Streets and has a total height of 133 feet (41 m). It was erected by public conscription and consists of a statue of Earl Grey on a pedestal standing on top of a Roman Doric column." (Note that the short sentence: "The monument was paid for by public subscription." should be deleted if this suggestion is followed.
 * Done, thank you.
 * The sentence: "It gives its name to the Tyne and Wear Metro station nearby, Monument Metro station." should be moved into a new third paragraph on the public and critical reaction to the statue.
 * Done.

Context

 * I suggest rephrasing the image caption to read "Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey, (17641845)". Mention of his tenure as Prime Minister and the passing of the Great Reform Act is in the main text, so does not need to be repeated.
 * Thanks, done.
 * I suggest moving the image (portrait of Grey) to the right hand side.
 * Done, although this places it below the infobox.
 * Again, I am not sure that "commemorate" is the right word here. Perhaps "mark the tenure of Charles Grey as Prime Minister" or "in recognition of the tenure of Charles Grey as Prime Minister" would be a more appropriate phrasing.
 * Changed.
 * The connection between Grey and Newcastle is not obvious. I presume that the city was part of the County Constituency of Northumberland when Grey was an MP. Is this right?
 * I don't think Newcastle was part of the Northumberland Constituency. According to this website, Newcastle and Northumberland were separate constituencies. The connection was probably just because they're close by!
 * I think it should be explained at this point that Grey was still alive at the time that the monument was erected. Perhaps adding "Grey, who was still alive when the monument was erected, retired from the House of Commons in 1807." or similar at the end of the paragraph would make this clear.
 * Done, and added a citation.

Conception and planning

 * I suggest rephrasing the first sentence to read "A monument to Earl Grey was first proposed by the Newcastle architect, John Green, less than a week after the Great Reform Act had been passed." Or similar.
 * Have changed to "A monument to Earl Grey was first proposed by the Newcastle-based architect, John Green, in 1832."
 * I suggest deleting the sentence "The Newcastle-based architect, John Green, sought investment for a statue of Earl Grey via public subscription."
 * Done.
 * I suggest rephrasing the sentence "He intended for the statue to be built in Northumberland Square in North Shields and envisaged the Earl to be depicted in Parliamentary robes, holding the Magna Carta." To "Green envisaged a statue in Northumberland Square, North Shields, depicting Grey in parliamentary robes, holding the Magna Carta" or similar.
 * Done.
 * I suggest rephrasing "The proposal was advertised in a column in The Newcastle Chronicle on 16 June 1832" to "Green sought public subscriptions for his scheme in the The Newcastle Chronicle on 16 June 1832:"
 * Done.
 * I suggest either deleting "were hesitant to commemorate a minister" or replacing "minister" with "individual" or "single person".
 * Done.
 * Please delete "more" from "In 1834, more alternative sites for the monument were proposed..." I also suggest removing "In 1834" as the year in which the alternative sites were proposed is not particularly important.
 * Done.
 * Please place a full stop after "Rimside Moor in Northumberland" (i.e. before ref [7]).
 * Done.
 * Please start a new paragraph with "its current site in central Newcastle", rephrasing this to "The eventual site in central Newcastle was realised as part of a local improvement plan proposed by Richard Grainger."
 * Done.
 * I am not entirely clear what the sequence of events was surrounding the eventual choice of Grey Street as the location of the statue. I feel that the Grainger redevelopment needs a little more detail. Am I correct in thinking there was already a proposal for a public square with a statue at the top of (what would become) Grey Street and that it was only later that the Grey Monument scheme was incorporated into the plans?
 * I've gone back to the source and added more detail, hopefully this is a bit clearer.
 * Please change "In October of the same year" to "In 1834". (6 October is given as the date in the next sentence.)
 * Done.
 * Please move "The final location of the monument was slow to be approved, due to indecision from the council." To the next paragraph and incorporate the content into the discussion of the decision made on 14 September 1836.
 * Done.
 * "There was also some lack of approval of Earl Grey himself." This needs a lot more discussion. Some mention of Grey's desire for a private life after stepping down as PM would be helpful here.
 * I've added a bit - do you think there needs to be more?
 * Please delete "Regarding the location of the monument".
 * Done, but I've also made it clear upfront what Councillor Charnley was talking about.
 * This paragraph says that Benjamin Green designed the column, but the lead section attributes it to both John and Benjamin Green. (The National Heritage List for England entry attributes Benjamin Green only.)
 * Source [1] saying Benjamin, but source [9] says it was John. If Natural Heritage says Benjamin, and [1] says Benjamin, I'd be inclined to go with Benjamin. I will change the lead. I think the confusion may have come from the fact that John Green proposed the statue, and they both laid the foundation stone.
 * Please place "John Green's son" between commas and not between dashes.
 * Done.
 * Please delete "himself" from the final sentence of this section.
 * Done.

Construction

 * Would "Construction and unveiling" be a better subsection title?
 * Sounds good, I've changed.
 * Please place "who had previously built the Ouseburn Viaduct and Bellingham Bridge" between commas and not between dashes.
 * Done.
 * Please remove the repetition of "monument's construction" in the first paragraph.
 * Done.
 * Should "tradesman's tokens" be "tradesmen's tokens"?
 * I think they're interchangeable, but a cursory Google brings up more "tradesmen's" than "tradesman's", so I've changed.
 * Please change "the scaffolding which had been encasing the monument up until that point" to "the scaffolding encasing the monument".
 * Done.
 * I think more detail of the August 1838 unveiling ceremony would be useful, if this information is available.
 * I think I got all the relevant newspaper entries from around that time (at least the ones I have access to). The ceremony seems to have mainly been reported on retrospectively.

Column

 * "The fluted column... does not have a base." The photos very clearly show that the column is resting on some sort of large plinth, which most readers would consider to be a base. This sentence requires rephrasing and further explanation. The National Heritage List for England entry calls this base a "tall, panelled pedestal"!
 * I've gone back to source [1] to try and work this out (my lack of architectural knowledge is showing lol!). Source [1] is a bit clearer, in that it says the pedestal of the column does not have a base. Maybe that's a bit clearer? I've added a clarification.
 * Please replace: "The column was originally built from Pennine stone. Renovations on the column replaced the original stone with sandstone ashlar." with "The column was originally built from Pennine stone, later replaced with sandstone ashlar."
 * Done.
 * What is "Pennine stone"? I presume that this is a type of limestone? Is this correct?
 * I'd imagine so, given the prevalence of limestone in the Pennines. Given that I can't find anything conclusive regarding a definition of "Pennine stone", I've changed to "stone from the Pennines".
 * I suggest moving the sentence "A building survey conducted in 1995..." to the end of the paragraph, to bring everything into chronological order.
 * Done.
 * What is the date of the "Old photographs [that] indicate that the monument was originally on a traffic island and was surrounded by railings"?
 * I can't access that book unfortunately. I can remove the statement?
 * There is a photo on Flickr, in the public domain, that shows the monument surrounded by traffic. I suggest that you upload it to commons and add it here.
 * I'm not an expert in PD, but I don't think that photo would be able to have a relevant PD tag that would make it acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see Upload/Flickr. If it was taken in 1968, PD-old-70 is inappropriate. Additionally, PD-US-expired is inappropriate. Unless there is another template which we could use, I'd be resistant to uploading.
 * The discussion of the lighting is too detailed. I suggest replacing the current three sentences to "Four lamps were placed at the base of the monument in 1893, increased to 12 in the 1910s. The lamps were later removed."
 * Done.
 * Is the monument illuminated at night?
 * No, not currently.

Statue

 * The railings at the base of the upper pedestal are surrounding the viewing platform. This should be made clear in this section.
 * Done.
 * "was coated in wax" – is the statue still coated in wax? If you are not sure, it might be best to say "was originally coated in wax".
 * Have changed to "originally".
 * Please start a new paragraph with "During a thunderstorm..."
 * Done.
 * Footnote [a] – which article?
 * Have clarified.
 * Reference [29] (Monument to stay headless) does not mention tram lines, although reference [30] (First-aid for Earl Grey monument) does.
 * Should I duplicate the reference so it sits at the end of both sentences?
 * I am not sure that it is necessary to say that Roger Hedley was Ralph Hedley's son.
 * Have removed.
 * I am not sure that the two photographs in the gallery are appropriate. In particular, the one on the left does not show the statue particularly well (because of the dark blue sky in the background). I suggest deleting the image on the left and moving the one on the right (close up photo of the statue) so that it is in line with the text.
 * Done.
 * Image caption: Portland stone is a type of limestone. It is not usually described as marble.
 * Done.

Inscriptions

 * I am not sure that the 1838 discussion of potential inscriptions is useful. I suggest deleting the first two paragraphs and the rhyming couplet.
 * No problem, I've removed.

Reception

 * Perhaps "Critical and public reaction" might be a better section title?
 * Sounds good, have changed it.
 * I suggest starting a new paragraph with "The monument did not receive universal acclaim..."
 * Done.
 * Please rephrase the sentence starting "The monument did not receive universal acclaim..." to eliminate the repetition of "receive".
 * Have changed to "The monument was not universally acclaimed..."
 * I suggest moving "In the 1920s, there were calls from the Durham Branch of the Surveyors' Institution to remove and relocate the monument, due to its growing obstruction of the traffic.[39]" from the "Location" section, so that it follows "Public interest and awareness of Earl Grey also decreased into and during the 20th century.[1]"
 * Done.
 * Please delete "of repairs" from the sentence starting "In the second half of the 20th century there were multiple calls..."
 * Done.
 * I suggest changing "previous repairs led to long-term damage" to "previous repairs had led to long-term damage".
 * Done.

Location

 * The "Location" section seems to be in the wrong place. The "Conception and planning" section has already stated that the monument is at the junction of Grey and Grainger Streets, so there is no point repeating this again.
 * Have removed the sentence.
 * The tram system could be mentioned in a footnote in the Conception and planning" section.
 * I've moved the info to a footnote.
 * The relocation suggested in the 1920s, can be moved to the "Reception" section.
 * Done.
 * Likewise the naming of the Metro station and the fact that the base of the statue is a popular meeting point could also be moved into the "Reception" section.
 * Moved.
 * As the only sentence remaining in the Location section was "It is within the Monument local authority ward.", I have added this to the same footnote regarding the tram system, to help with context.

First pass complete
That's all for the first pass. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Mertbiol, thanks again for reviewing this article. I've addressed your comments above, look forward to hearing from you!  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  23:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Second pass
I have given the article a thorough copy edit and have added an additional reference. I have also checked all of the citations that I am able to access. (Note that I do not have access to the book by Usherwood, Beach and Morris (2000).) The Earwig Copyvio Detector tool flags the text of the inscriptions, but identifies no valid copyright concerns.

Final verdict

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Congratulations and thanks to for their hard work to bring this nomination forward. I am happy to promote this article to GA status. Mertbiol (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Happy days, amazing thanks. Makes me want to celebrate by getting drunk and vomiting all over it like the old days! 10mmsocket (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)