Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Royal Artillery Memorial


 * 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal Artillery Memorial

 * Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a famous and distinctive monument to the losses of the First World War. The article includes both military history and the history of art, and I'd be particularly interested in views as to how well these two blend together, and if the artistic community's interpretation is clear enough in the article. Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Comments/suggestions: interesting article. No major dramas from my perspective. Just a few minor points per below. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with:
 * in the infobox the conflict is called "World War I', but elsewhere in the article the term that is used is the "First World War". I suggest tweaking the infobox so that it is consistent;
 * Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * the first sentence of the History section: "The First World War between 1914 to 1918 saw the extensive use of artillery, particularly on the Western Front." This might sound smoother as: "The First World War, which took place between 1914 and 1918, saw the extensive use of artillery, particularly on the Western Front";
 * in the History section, the wikilink to the "Western Front" might be adjusted to "Western Front (World War I)";
 * Adjusted. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * this seems a little inconsistent: in the lead "Royal Regiment of Artillery", in the History section "Royal Artillery Regiment";
 * Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The link to "Royal Artillery Regiment" in the History section points to a Malaysian unit, not the British one;
 * Fixed, but ultimately we probably need a DAB page... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * in the section sentence of the History section, I suggest wikilinking "other ranks" which could be linked to Other Ranks;
 * Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "because of his service as a infantry officer". This might sound smoother as: "because of his service as an infantry officer" (emphasis added only to highlight suggested change);
 * Agree, fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "months late on October 18 1925 by..." Per convention and ease of understanding for the reader, there should probably be a comma after "October 18" and another after "1925";
 * Added. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * this seems awkward: "These memorials frequently used of abstract, beautiful designs intended..." Perhaps try: "These memorials frequently used abstract, beautiful designs intended... (suggest removing "of");
 * Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * in the References, the instances of page ranges probably should have endashes rather than just hyphens (minor point obviously);
 * Will fix (I always get these wrong...) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have only limited download on my new internet plan, so I am not able to review the image licences. If you wouldn't mind, though, can I ask that you make sure that you are confident that they are correct in this regard. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review - sorry it took so long! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, looks good. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Images:
 * All are fine except the lead image, which was previously confirmed as valid but has since been deleted from flickr. I believe we normally think this is okay, but worth noting. If you want to be safe with an alternative, you could upload a copy of this one - CC-BY-SA, and equally striking against a blue sky.
 * If its been checked, its usually okay (unless there's obviously a copyright problem with it); in this case, I think the original posting was in good faith, and it checked out okay in Feb last year. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional images, should you want them - there's some PD images from the 1930s(?) here.
 * You can really see how clear the original carving was in some of these! I'm not sure they'd be PD under UK law though, given the date. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Style issues:
 * As Rupert notes above, Royal Reguiment of Artillery is the full form; Royal Artillery is the short form. I'd go with either RRA first then RA on later uses, or RA throughout; "Royal Artillery Regiment" should probably be avoided, ditto the use of "British" as a prefix to it - it's clear from context what nation we're discussing.
 * Fixed; I've gone with the RRA first, then RA, except where its a quote from the inscription. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Standardise "First World War" or "World War I", but remember it's "in the First World War" versus "in World War I".
 * Yep, found that one a moment ago! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Jones is credited with the "Boer War Cavalry Memorial" - it might be worth double-checking the name, as it seems likely that in 1920, this was still called the "South African [War] Cavalry Memorial".
 * Will check (will need to fish out the book though!) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Content:
 * It's a Grade II* listed monument - the list entry includes a comment as "of considerable originality and force", which seems worth quoting.
 * There's no indication of the author of the comment, so I've left out for now. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article briefly mentions South African memorials; you could bring in the fact that there's a specific RA memorial for South Africa a couple of streets away.
 * The link isn't drawn out by the existing literature, so I think this might be synthesis. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On critical commentary, Fry died 1934, and so was possibly a contemporary comment rather than "later years" - it might be worth moving him back to the first paragraph.
 * Good point, have moved accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In general, there's a lack of commentary covering c. 1930 to 1980 - was it discussed at all in the wave of war memorials during the 1940s, and did it have any influence on future designs of this kind?
 * I haven't found any thing giving a direct link, and the sources I've been looking at are very quiet after 1930. I've been trying Alan Borg and a few others without any luck. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll have another read over for style tomorrow, but other than the later commentary I don't think it's missing much. Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 *  Comment: Support An interesting and readable article that seems well-rounded. One source that I thought was missing was the UK National Inventory of War Memorials. Their database record for this memorial states that the howitzer was modelled on the example held by the Imperial War Museum. The database also identifies one of the models for the sculpture as Domenico Mancini, and that the unveiling ceremony's dedication was performed by Reverend Dr A C E Jarvis. These details might be worth integrating. Even so, a good article. IxK85 (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the IWM and the Jarvis elements, but I wasn't sure how notable Mancini was in this context. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I wonder though if there ought to be a reference to the 2011 restoration; it would seem a significant event in the life of this memorial. --IxK85 (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no further comments; I support this nomination. --IxK85 (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.