Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North Eastern Railway War Memorial/archive1


 * 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2017.

North Eastern Railway War Memorial

 * Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, another war memorial. This is the fourth article in the series to reach FAC and an unusual intersection of topics: architecture, military history, and railways! My last nomination was a memorial for a Lincolnshire town, commemorating some 200 casualties; this one commemorates over 2,000, all of them employees of one railway company. Fittingly, it is a large and imposing monument, even for a city as historic as York—you would struggle to walk from the station to the city centre without noticing it.

As ever, I'm very much obliged for any feedback. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

John
Nice article.

More to come. --John (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All caps should be translated to either sentence case or title case. (MOS:ALLCAPS)
 * I'm aware of that bit of the MoS, but no style guide can cover every possibility and I think sentence case or title case would look out of place here, and all caps is appropriate for two short dedications. Some memorials have entire essays inscribed on them, in which case "normalising" the case would make sense but here I do't think it does.
 * Dislike "fallen". Prefer "dead" per WP:EUPH.
 * Fair enough. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks John, I'll look forward to it.

Comments from Davidvaughanwells
Was there really a coal depot on the site originally. I always thought the early coal sidings were outside the city walls.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Background


 * Yes, the OS 1:1056 scale plan of 1856 shows what appears to be a coal yard inside the city wall - it was in two parts. The western part, between the wall (and parallel to it) and York old railway station, was a group of sidings; the central ones continued through what is now the War Memorial, and across the road, continuing along what is now Station Road, where the eastern part comprised about a dozen staithes and six coal drops, parallel to Tanner's Moat. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks#Redrose64 --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You learn something new every day! Thanks . HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim
Looks pretty good. I would have preferred international units before US/UK, but your choice is clearly acceptable for UK topic. Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Grade II* could do with a gloss somewhere, perhaps its formal definition "particularly important buildings of more than special interest".
 * Done.
 * Raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby even though it's capped in the linked article, "Raid" looks odd to me, prefer "raid"
 * I have no strong feelings on this either way so done, though if that turns out to be its proper name I'll probably revert.
 * Conversely, "zeppelin" should be capped
 * Done (by OotR).
 * "abutting against"; "against" is redundant
 * Done.
 * idea in a cable sound American to me, why not telegram?
 * Confession: I'm far too young to have any idea about such things! I went with cable because that's the term Skelton uses (he's a Brit) but if other reviewers feel that telegram is more appropriate, I'm happy to change it.
 * I forgot I'd reviewed this, I'm happy with the responses, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Images are correctly licensed and appropriate 
 * Thank you very much for the review. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Optimist on the run
I've known this monument since childhood, as my father, and later myself, worked in the railway offices behind it. Good to see an article about it, and thanks to HJ Mitchell for his hard work. I've got a few suggestions for minor improvements:- Optimist on the run (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Lede: coincidentally at end of the first paragraph seems a bit editorial.
 * I think it's fine; it is a coincidence that the city memorial was built on NER land (this wasn't a factor in the decision). And I didn't use Skelton's phrase, "a curious twist of fate"! ;)
 * Background: one of the largest employers in the north of England needs a citation.
 * I'm pretty sure this is just an extrapolation from Langham, but either way there weren't (and aren't) many firms employing tens of thousands of people.
 * Background: The second paragraph also needs more citations, in particularly the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world, The NER's memorial is also the second of two memorials Lutyens designed for railway companies, the first was the Midland Railway War Memorial and The design resembles that of Lutyens' Southend-on-Sea War Memorial which aren't in the Historic England page.
 * Thiepval is mentioned in the listing but its size isn't; leave the with me, it'll be an easy fix (seriously, the thing is massive).
 * Inception: Perhaps a map could be added to show the relative locations of the NER and city memorials (including the originally proposed site), the city walls and the old and new stations.
 * I don't have the skills to make something like this, and I worry abut how useful it would be given that these things are just a few metres apart, but I wouldn't rule out including it if someone was to make one.
 * Design: The close-up of the remembrance stone isn't really that close. I'll be in York next weekend, and if possible I'll see if I can get some more photos of it.
 * Yes please! The photos in the article are the only photos we have of it. I live at the opposite end of the country so wouldn't be able to get there any time soon.
 * See also - perhaps the railway memorials could be linked in a navbox instead of see also.
 * I think the connection is a bit tangential for a navbox and navboxes are clutter, but I suppose someone could create one if they wanted.
 * General - agree with above comments about "Zeppelin" and "fallen" - I've fixed these.
 * Thank you.
 * I'm glad you found the article interesting, especially given your personal knowledge of the memorial; I enjoyed writing it. Thanks for your comments. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support on prose. I'm not convinced that "embroiled in controversy" is an encyclopaedic term, but I'll leave that to your discretion. In terms of cable v telegram (above), I was under the impression that cables were between the US and Britain (from the Transatlantic Cable), while telegrams were elsewhere, particularly within Britain. I may be wrong on that, but I don't think "cable" is a US variant per se. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: With two supports, this isn't in immediate danger of archiving, but I wonder if it would be worth pinging either those who have commented already or other editors who might be interested, in an attempt to revive this FAC a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, who commented on the A-class review, might be interested in revisiting? (The Bounder has already commented here). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Support -- Tks for the reminder, I did review, copyedit and support at MilHist ACR not long ago and, having checked the changes since then, I'm happy to support here as well. I think the prose, structure, level of detail, images and referencing are all up to FA standard. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. I've had a look at the changes since I supported this for A class, and I don't see anything else that requires changing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: Well that moved quickly in the end. I think that Ian's review included a source review, but I've checked myself just in case and there are no problems on that score, so I think we can promote this now. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.