Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National War Memorial (South Australia)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:39, 10 March 2009 [1].

National War Memorial (South Australia)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bilby (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think that it is ready, and I believe it to be complete. I've been working on it for a while now, and have pretty much exhausted the sources. It's been through a peer review and GAN, and since then I let it sit for a bit while I waited for access to the physical site and for any input from other editors. Plus it never hurts to get a bit of distance from your writing. At any rate, I really enjoyed doing the research on this, and I hope that it is at a featured standard - but, if not, it should come out a better article via this process than it was going in. Bilby (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I spotted a contraction "didn't" in there
  • The odd thing is that the dimensions and height of the memorial isn't specified, which I think it needs to be if possible.
  • I wonder why you did not take a photo of the inner chamber. That seems to be missing
  • That was a tad problematic. The memorial has been closed for most of the time I was working on the article, and the public were only recently given full access. I took some pictures inside it, but while I wasn't relly happy with them, one of the bronzes looks ok, so I've added that to the article. - Bilby (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think in the historical intro, it would be good to add how many SA people and % of SA people served in WWI so that the the significance of the war effort and its impact can be better understood
  • I think the first caption in the main text is not quite accurate as the angle seems to be from the corner of Kintore/NT looking NW into the face rather than directly W from Kintore.
  • Do we know the general number of labourers it took to build it?
  • Unfortunately no. Richardson didn't mention the numbers, and no-one else would have tried. :( Some could theoretically be derived from Tillet's records, which I've been told still exist, but that would only hold for the stonemasons, and would probably be OR. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information about vandalism/misuse of the war memorial. There are always yobbos there skating on it ... :(
  • I've been over everything I can get access to, and there isn't anything that we can use - there are three newspaper articles about vandalism, but they're individual cases. There was also something in Hansard about improving lighting in the area to cut down on drug use, but I gather that was the surrounding areas, rather than the memorial as such. - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistencies with choice of date format in refs needs to be fixed.
  • I don't agree with the BW caption of North Terrace. The picture is taken from about 50m west of Kintore and maybe 200-250 metres east of King William Road, which is closer to Kintore than KWR.

Overall a great article. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the toolbox there are a couple of dabs and broken urls that are waiting for you. Apart from that the sources are all fine and scholarly. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found with WP:REFTOOLS.

  • Inglis (2008), p. 281. -- Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Inglis2008p281 -- Multiple references are given the same name--TRUCO 22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns as follows:

  • That's who I got it from. :) I'll see them again and inquire about the source. The date mentioned was what they presumed it to be, but I agree there's leeway in this - although on the plus side I've seen a picture of him from the mid 40's, and he certainly looks younger in the picture I've used. I'll push for something more exact. - Bilby (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The architecture museum curator is sure that the picture is prior to 1946, but she doesn't have anything to confirm that (other than the mustache, which he didn't have in 1946), and none of the works we know of in which it has been used include an attribution. However, I tracked down the 1929 issue of "Who's Who in Australia", which included a photo that is definitely safe, so I've swapped them over. (File:Louis Laybourne Smith 1929.jpg). I've got an even more dapper picture from the 1909 "Cyclopedia of South Australia", (handlebar mustache and everything), but the quality is lower and the 1929 pic is the right period for the war memorial. - Bilby (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:North Terrace, Adelaide, 1940.jpg is not the postcard the description states it to be. P. 9394 (1940, hence PD-US and AUS) is this one; the vehicles are different, the shot is taken further away, and the weather seems drier. The postcard that is used for this image is this one (H82.289/208), which is circa 1946, hence not PD-US (though PD-AUS).
  • Your link doesn't work, I'm afraid - it seems to be a temporary search result. However, the wrong number was on the postcard, as the correct number is P 9446. I suspect I stuffed up somehow. Presuming that's the one you found, then 1946 may be right. I can't swap the two, as the first one is from the SA Library, and they claim ownership (but not copyright) on the photos. So unless I can get my own copy of the postcard I don't think I can really use it. On the plus side, I should be able to get my own copy, so I'll chase that up in the next couple of days (when my pay clears) and report back. - Bilby (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. I tracked down a copy of the 1940 postcard, P. 9394, and replaced the 1946 picture with a scan of the new one. So all should be good. I also added a second picture that I found at the same time - it's an earlier number in the same series, P. 9259, and is similarly dated 1940 (although judging by the state of the vines on the wall, I'd guess that it's pre 1936). - Bilby (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the postcard should be easy to resolve (a swap would do). Inquiries for the other two images could likely resolve them too. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All images now in the article are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy yet—1a. I read only the lead, which doesn't fill me with confidence. The whole of the text is at issue; these are mere examples of what I mean. Tendency to long-windedness, inter alia.

  • Second sentence: illogical structuring of ideas. "Opened in 1931, the memorial was first proposed in 1919 and was funded by the Parliament of South Australia." No ... "First proposed in 1919, the memorial was funded by the Parliament of South Australia and was opened in 1931." is getting there. But then we're shunted back into the story in the second para. Hmmm ...
  • "The first competition, conducted in 1924, produced 26 designs"—Remove "conducted", and "which was run" later.
  • "In this, the work is not displaying a material victory, but instead a victory of the spirit." --> "The work is not displaying a victory of the spirit rather than a material victory".
  • "Within the memorial can be found bronzes lining the walls of the inner shrine on which are listed the names of all South Australians who died during the Great War." OK, so names not from WWII. "the Great War" will be understood as WWI, will it? Maybe. It's long-winded; why not: "Bronzes line the walls of the inner shrine, on which are listed the names of all South Australians who died during the Great War." Comma required, since not a subset of such shrines—it's the only one, yes? Tony (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a good massage if the prose is to be regarded as "of professional standard". We're doing justice to a lot of people who died, so smooth, authoritative writing is the least we can deliver. Tony (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead has been rewritten per the above, and restructured: the first part now focuses solely on the big questions - what is it, who is it for, where is it - while the second covers history and design, following the structure of the article proper. - Bilby (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. I started with "History" and don't have a great feeling about the prose. Some sample issues:
    • "Almost 35,000 South Australians served in the First World War, accounting for ..." To me, this is strangely organized so "accounting for" wants to refer to "First World War" rather than the 35,000.
    • "In response to these deaths, Archibald Peake, the premier of South Australia, declared that he would be asking the state ..." Why not cut the "declared he would be" and just write "asked"?
    • Moving on from there: "... parliament to fund the building of a memorial commemorating" More wordiness; why not just "fund a memorial"? Clearly they are funding its construction.
    • "... it received unanimous support in both the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council." What is the word "both" doing?
    • "As a result of this decision, the South Australian Government became the first in Australia to elect to build a memorial to the soldiers of the First World War." They didn't "elect" as a result of the "decision"; the election was the decision. Either eliminate the entire opening clause, or eliminate "to elect".
    • "It was decided at the time that the new memorial should be referred to as the 'National War Memorial'" Twisted and wordy passive voice. Solve the problem by making it active and tell us who decided: "<Whoever> decided to refer to the new memorial as ..."
Lots of work needed. --Laser brain (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those have all been addressed, and I've made a light pass through "History" to fix anything else I can spot in that part. I'll run through the rest and try to tighten the language, as well as making another pass on the History section. Any other suggestions would be gratefully received. - Bilby (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - was granite and marble the only used stone ? A reference I have tells me that Stoneyfell Quartzite (Tea Tree Gully Freestone) from Bundey's quarry was also used. Isn't the main structure this stone ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/National_War_Memorial_(South_Australia)/archive1&oldid=1138467580"