Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London and North Western Railway War Memorial/archive1

London and North Western Railway War Memorial

 * Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Another war memorial! I think there's something fascinating about pieces of stone that have stood on the same spot for 100 years. This one has seen some changes over that century, some of which are illustrated by the photos in the article. Once part of an impressive classical arrangement, it's now one of only two traces remaining of the "old" Euston; the rest was swept away in the 1960s in the name of progress. Meanwhile, the company whose employees it commemorates has been amalgamated, nationalised, and then privatised. I'm grateful to for his input in the article's development,  for his detailed photos of the statues, and the reviewers at the MilHist A-class review who provided some very useful feedback. Hopefully you agree it's up to standard, but all feedback is welcome! :) Due to real life, it might take me a couple of days to respond to comments but I'm not ignoring you, I promise! HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

 * Images are missing alt texts
 * File:Drawing_of_London_and_North_Western_Railway_War_Memorial_in_The_Builder.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reginald Wynn Owen died on 15 May 1950. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Alt text added (not sure how good or useful it is, though; happy to take advice on improvements). RWO's dates added to the description page on Commons out of an abundance of caution. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support
I supported this article at the A-class review, and I support it now. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hawkeye! HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Thryduulf
Looking through the photos on Commons, there are identical inscriptions on the east and west elevations "Remember the men and women on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway 1939-1945" yet there is no mention of WWII at all. (I meant to comment about this in the A class review but never got round to it). I'll have a more detailed read of the text later. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The article did mention these, but I've added in the dedication.


 * The lead feels rather long. How much of "The memorial was unusual in featuring an airman so prominently." and the final two paragraphs is needed this early?
 * Fair point. Trimmed a bit.
 * Consider using to give present-day values for the last paragraph of the background section
 * I'm sceptical of the value of these templates. I feel they're comparing apples ang oranges.
 * Is there anything that can be said about the history before the unveiling, e.g. about the commissioning?
 * Not that isn't already mentioned. You can see from the size of the bibliography that this is covered in a lot of places, but none of the sources (even the LNWR's official history of the war) gives any details on the commissioning process. That's not really surprising for a private company building a monument on its own land using its in-house architect—there wouldn't be a lengthy paper trail. This is similar to, for example, the Midland Railway War Memorial; we only know so much about the North Eastern Railway War Memorial because of the controversy over its location, and even then we have barely a footnote from the minutes of a board meeting.
 * Don't need to say both "leaving the war memorial and two station lodges the only surviving parts of the old Euston complex." and "the lodges, along with the war memorial, were the only survivors of the 1960s redevelopment" in successive paragraphs, especially when it's already in the lead. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Trimmed. Thanks for your comments,, and thank you for taking the photos used in the gallery. Just goes to show that you never know what will be useful one day! HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Fulfills my source review. I haven't don't any spot checks, but I don't see a strong reason to at this stage -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For what it's worth, Hawkeye did a spot check at the ACR; he appears to have copies of some of the books. :) HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Comments from Nick-D
I'm fascinated by World War I memorials erected by companies for some reason - maybe as they illustrate the trauma the war caused across society - and am interested in visiting this memorial when the world returns to normal and I'm next able to travel to the UK. I'd like to offer the following minor comments:
 * The first para should note the number of LNWR employees who were killed, given this is the subject of the memorial
 * The order of sentences in the first two paras of the 'Background' section feels a bit random. I'd suggest starting with what the LNWR was, then the size of the company, then the numbers of its staff who fought, etc. The sentence about companies building memorials might best work in the last para of this section.
 * Can anything be said about how donations from the company's staff were solicited? (for instance, was this effort led by management, or was it led by the workers and/or their unions?) Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the comments! I agree there's something fascinating about company war memorials. I think they show that the war affected all areas of life. Though somehow I don't think modern companies would feel moved to build monuments if something similar were to happen today. Let me know when you're planning a trip to the UK and I'll try to get up to London so we can visit it together. I believe I've addressed your first two comments. As to your third, there's nothing in the sources about this; it seems to be implied that there was some sort of agreement that the company would cover a large percentage of the cost, possibly as a unifying gesture following the 1919 strike. This is in contrast to the NER, interestingly, who built a large memorial entirely at the company's expense. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I'm happy to support the nomination now. With a sufficient amount of luck (and an acceleration in Australia's vaccine program) I'm hoping to visit Europe late next year. I wouldn't be shocked if it isn't doable though! Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

 * Remember that the lede is a summary of the whole article. Don't give exact figures for manpower or money there; save them for the main body.
 * Same with its height, the detailed description of the memorial, the name of the prominent attendees and the date of unveiling, etc.
 * Put the citations above the bibliography--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by 👨x🐱
Hi, <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b>. I've seen you around at other FA discussions, so thought I'd stop by to review this. As an American who's a dummy in history, I'll be the perfect user to comment on this XD. Well-done article overall. The prose is engaging and professional, but needs some clarification or linking in places. I imagine memorials don't get much coverage besides those in history and awards books, although I did find these. I don't have the book sources with me or can access them, so I would ask another review to spotcheck the sources.. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Infobox image has no alt description.
 * Any reason why some image alts start with a lower-case letter?
 * There's some history and sculpture WP:JARGON in the lead I didn't get on a first read (hey, that rhymes), so it should be linked or explained. "Obelisk" "pedestal" "bronze wreath" "over-life-size" "artilleryman," "infantryman," "sailor," "airman"
 * More of the same in the body that introductory readers may not get the first time: "private-sector", "artillery shells", "munitions", "conscripted", "granite tablet", "Buttresses", "the Western Front". Check for others
 * Lead: "much of the company's infrastructure was turned over to the war effort." Body: "During the First World War (1914–1918), it turned much of Crewe Works, its main engineering facility, over to the war effort." The lead implies most of the infrastructure of all of the company's facilities went to World War I, but this contradicts the body.
 * "skilled employees" WP:VAGUE. Why are we calling the employees "skilled"? Isn't skill required to do any work in the first place, or did these employees have elite skills most others didn't have?
 * "introduction of conscription," Why not just conscription?
 * "to commemorate their employees who were killed in the war." I find this to be Fluff. I think it's obvious what war memorials are to introductory readers.
 * "Owen also designed a war memorial" Read MOS:LINKCLARITY to see the problem here.
 * Why is "R. L. Boulton & Sons." not credited in the lead for building the statue?
 * Why do the first two paragraphs of "Design" have all of the cites bundled at the end of paragraph? Why not certain citations for certain sentences? I don't imagine all of those citations having every single detail in that paragraph.
 * "The tablets are inscribed "Remember the men and women of the London Midland and Scottish Railway 1939–1945"." Does this mean all the later tablets had that text on them?
 * Lead: "a cross in relief". Body: "stone cross protruding from the body itself". I found relief a simpler description with the link to the article about relief.
 * "Obelisks are not inherently associated with Christianity, though Wynn Owen" --> "Although obelisks are not inherently associated with Christianity, Wynn Owen"
 * " he intended the addition of the crosses" Hold on, those crosses were "added"? I thought they were initially built with the rest of the sculpture, that doesn't speak "added" to me. Addition would imply crosses were after well after the sculpture was made.
 * Per MOS:FAMILYNAME, you must present the full name of a person on his first mention in the article, than reference him by his last name. Any reason why "Wynn Owen" is repeated instead of just Owen? 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, gave a dedication." Vague. What kind of dedication?
 * Since you use an initialism of "Victoria Cross" late in the article and introduce the full phrase in the background section, "Victoria Cross" --> "Victoria Cross (VC)"
 * "largest for a railway company war memorial." Of all-time? Until another war memorial had happened later in history?
 * Was is "the official narrative of the war"? What are "special trains"?
 * Since more than half of the "History" section is about the memorial, I would split it into two sections. One would be about the memorial, the other about the statue's presence in later years.
 * "The company also produced a Roll of Honour, a copy of which was presented to the nearest living relative of each of the dead." Was the "Roll of Honour"? I'm guessing it's a paper or book or some sort. Only description word used is "volume", which I don't know what that is.

Source review
Bibliography
 * Do you usually have the texts before the short citations? I can't recall seeing it done this way before.
 * ISBNs lack hyphens (try this tool).
 * Ashplant et al. 2000: Does Ashplant normally go by his initials? Almost everyone else in this list gets a full name. Routledge could take a link.
 * Biddle 2011: Ian Allan Publishing could take a link.
 * Boorman 1988/2005: Is Boorman Derek Boorman? Pen and Sword Books could take a link.
 * Darroch 1920: Ditto re: initials. This is out of copyright in at least some locations, so may as well add a link. Speaking of links: John Murray (publishing house).
 * Hooper & Portillo 2014: Michael Portillo can take a link, as could Bantam Press.
 * King 1998: Berg Publishers.
 * Koureas 2007: Routledge again.
 * Lambert 2018: Historic England.
 * Simmons & Biddle 1997: Jack Simmons (historian) & Oxford University Press.

Citations
 * Generally speaking I'd suggest sfn footnotes, though preferences obviously vary.
 * #1: What does "location 1803–1830" mean?
 * #14: The article from The Times is undoubtedly available online somewhere.
 * #24: The "eds" is probably unnecessary here.

Source from looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Harry, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like Harry's been on WP for around three weeks so we'll have to close this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)