This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) at 01:19, 14 April 2022 (re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:19, 14 April 2022 by Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) (re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)The Cenotaph
The Cenotaph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is the culmination of a project I've been working on (on and off, with quite a few digressions!) for about six years, starting with Northampton War Memorial, which passed FAC back in 2016. It documents the history of what is easily Britain's most famous war memorial, and probably one of the most famous war memorials anywhere. It was never intended to be such. It started life in wood and plaster as one of a collection of monuments for the parade to celebrate the formal end of the First World War, but it caught the imagination of a public mourning the loss of an entire generation of men in a way that nothing before or since ever has. The industrial-scale slaughter had never been seen before, and most of the dead (or what was left of them) were buried overseas. People needed somewhere to grieve, and the Cenotaph gave them that. It was rebuilt almost unchanged and in the same spot in stone, where it has stood for over a century and is still revered today.
I've largely rewritten and expanded it from the ground up over the course of a couple of years, and slowly accumulated just about every piece of literature which covers it in detail. I'm indebted to Carcharoth for his help and advice throughout the process, and to Tim riley for a very thorough GA review, and now I think it's ready for its star. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the sketch
- Happy to do so if you can explain how
- Add
|upright=X, where X is how much you want to scale it relative to user preferences. For example, if you have a default image size set of 200px,|upright=1.1will make the image look like it's 220px for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Add
- Happy to do so if you can explain how
- Suggest adding alt text
- Done, except for the gallery in the bottom where I'm not sure I could add anything that's helpful and not overly repetitive.
- File:Greek_Parade_Paris_1919.jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death. Ditto File:Monk-97672_-_The_Temporary_Cenotaph,_Whitehall.jpg
- Unable to find a date of death for the first but suspecting it may be more recent than 70 years; image removed. Date and US tag added for the second.
- File:Cenotaph_sketch_by_Lutyens.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:The_Cenotaph_the_Morning_of_the_Peace_Procession_by_Sir_William_Nicholson.jpg, File:Reverse_of_Armistice_Day_Memorial_Medal_1928.jpg
- Done.
- Where and when was the first two of these first published? For the last, the image description gives a date of 1928, but the tag indicates published pre-1927? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done.
- Can you elaborate on why File:Immortal_Shrine_(Will_Longstaff).jpg is believed to be PD in the US?
- The AWM states that it's in the public domain; that's all the information I have.
- Okay - I would expect the AWM declaration to apply to status in Australia rather than US. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- The AWM states that it's in the public domain; that's all the information I have.
- File:British_Empire_1897.jpg: source link is dead, missing US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is transcluded from a template. I have no idea what it's provenance is but it's used in thousands of places on enwiki and elsewhere. That said, I'm not convinced of the value of the template in the first place so I've removed it. @Nikkimaria: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Support from Tim riley
When reviewing the article for GAN I commented that it struck me as of FA standard, and revisiting it confirms my view. The article is highly readable (nearly 7,000 words, but it didn't seem that long even at a fourth perusal, just now), in impeccable prose, comprehensive as far as I can judge, balanced, well proportioned and well and widely referenced. I don't see any aspect that requires improvement, and the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 07:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)