Talk:National Police Memorial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article National Police Memorial has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
National Police Memorial is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
"The Albert Memorial" - the London Portal's current "Showcase Picture" This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] GA nomination

After looking over the article, I've decided to put it's GA nomination on hold, based on the following suggestions I have:

  • The external links should come last, after the references section.Y DoneGaryColemanFan (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:Lead the lead should be expanded to summarize the entire article, so it should make at least a brief mention of the criticisms against the monument and the architectural elements.
    • In the article's current form, I disagree; it's a short enough article that I don't think it's necessary to sum up every section in the lead, particularly given that the criticisms all seem fairly minor. — iridescent 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Although the pictures are in general helpful, I feel there are just too many photos given the limited amount of text. I would recommend taking out the St. James park and the under repair photos, since they have no relevance to the text, and are there merely for decoration.
    • I put those two in as they show the entire monument from two different angles; the other two photos only show sections of it. The St James's Park one I think is useful in illustrating the way in which creepers have been deliberately encouraged to grow on it, something that's difficult to explain in the text (although I did try). The only one I'd say is expendable is the one of the column on its own, but I left that in because it's at a high enough resolution that, when enlarged, it shows the "layers of glass" construction of the column which is quite hard to describe; also, as the pool is shown drained, it shows the base of the column which is usually hidden underwater. — iridescent 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well their not fair-use, so I'll leave that to your discretion. But the construction in particular seems unneccessary. Seeing the base doesn't seem very worthwhile to me. Drewcifer (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd say the most expendable photo would be the one that's currently in the infobox, as it only shows a part of the structure whereas the others show the whole; however, this is the only photo that was added by the original author of the article, and (having had it done to me many times) I know how irritating it is to have "your" photos removed from an article, leaving them orphaned and subsequently BCBot-deleted, so I'm loath to remove it without a good reason. — iridescent 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speaking of photos, are there any photos from the groundbreaking and/or unveiling? Those would be very helpful. I would even say they'd be fair-use applicable here.
    • They certainly exist - see here for example - but due to the Queen & Tony Blair's presence at the unveiling it was an invite-only event, so the only photos about are copyright to assorted press agencies; I didn't think they'd pass the Fair Use Police's criteria so left them out. — iridescent 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The one-sentence paragraph at the beggining of the Architectual section should be merged with the following paragraph.Y DoneGaryColemanFan (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "unlawfully killed"? Are any police officers lawfully killed in the line of duty?Y DoneGaryColemanFan (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes and this distinction is necessary as it's one of the criticisms raised in the "Criticism" section - officers killed in car crashes, training accidents etc while on duty aren't listed on the memorial. — iridescent 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense, but you may want to clarify that to avoid confusion. Drewcifer (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "public subscription"? Is this the right usage of the word? I've never heard subscription used like that. Could you reword it?
Figured it was a british english thing. If you could reword it for the rest of the world that would be nice. Drewcifer (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Have changed it to "public collection" which seems clearer. — iridescent 17:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The second sentence of the Historical background section ("While initially...") is very long and confusingly worded.
    • Done — iridescent 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In general, try and place in-line citations at the end of sentences, rather than in the middle of a sentence. There are way too many instances of mid-sentence citations. The only times were I could see it being useful is for particularly contentious material (such as individual criticisms, based on information from separate sources).
  • I know that the American/British ways of doing dates differ, but shouldn't there be a comma in between month and year? a la "12 April, 2006"? No, it's right in the article - pls see WP:dates#dates (Kbthompson (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC))
Fair enough. Drewcifer (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact that it was £400,000 under budget is great, but it begs the question how much did it cost?
    • Already in Historical background - repeat it? Kbthompson (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
My fault, didn't put the two together. Ignore that one. Drewcifer (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph of Construction section is unrelated to the section.
    • Agreed, but it's to short to warrant a section on its own, and - seeing as it relates to the design - this seems the least inappropriate place for it. I've renamed the section "Design & construction". — iridescent 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Simple fix, but effective. Drewcifer (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What exactly were the criticisms raised by the London Historical Parks Group and the local residents' association?
    • I know from memory that they were based on concerns that it would attract vandalism; however, I can't find a reliable source for this so left it out. As I could find a source for the fact that there were concerns (the Evening Standard article cited), I thought it better to mention that there were concerns raised while not specifying them, rather than leave it out altogether. — iridescent 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Drewcifer (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Irish Republican criticism seems out of context: as someone unfamiliar with British/Irish history, I have no idea why this would be a criticism. Though I wouldn't say you should go into too much detail (it is after all linked appropriately), a brief contextualization of the criticism would be informative and helpful.
    • Didn't want to go into detail here as I didn't want to take the article down a lengthy by-road on what's a fairly trivial point - there's a reference to a news story should anyone need the background. It boils down to debate on whether a "national" memorial should include officers from what some consider to be unlawfully occupied territory, and whether officers killed in the de facto war in Northern Ireland should be treated in the same way as officers killed by criminals, or as wartime casualties. — iridescent 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I tried to include a very brief summary in the footnote itself. See how you like it. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
What you put in there is perfect. Drewcifer (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Lastly, there should definitely be some mention of the design of the monument, not just what it's made of, how tall it is, etc. Is there any direct quotes from the designers about it? What does its form symbolize? What architectural style is it done in? Why were those guys chose in the first place? Was there a design contest or anything like that? Are those architects/designers notable for anything else?
    • The only specific symbolism I can find mentioned anywhere is the blue light, which is covered in the "Architectural elements" section. As the monument is built around the airshaft, I assume the dimensions of the "black cube" are simply the dimensions of the existing shaft, and the column is built in proportion to that - however, that is an assumption so I haven't mentioned it on WP:NOR grounds. The architect's website's page on the project doesn't mention any symbolism other than that of the blue light. I agree the height, materials etc are a bit dull, but as they're potentially useful to readers, I think it's good to keep them in. — iridescent 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
So there's no interviews or anything from the architects/designers themselves? It's not critical, but a few direct quotes about the physical thing itself would be nice. Drewcifer (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any, and (as you can presumably see from the varied references), I did go through the sources pretty thoroughly for this rewrite. All I can find from the designer is the quote on their website ("The memorial consists of two distinct elements. A book listing the names of officers killed on duty will be displayed in a vitrine within a dark stone wall. This wall, which will also carry an inscription and the polices badge of office, will form one side of a rectangular enclosure concealing the concrete London Underground vent shaft that currently occupies the site. The other three sides will be faced in the same dark stone and covered almost entirely in creeper similar to that covering the walls of the adjacent citadel. Alongside this enclosure will be a tall transparent wall of glass sited in a reflecting pool and gently illuminated with blue light. The glass wall represents the blue lamp once displayed outside every police station in Britain and still regarded as a symbol of the police and their readiness to serve. The glass wall provides a degree of shelter so that those visiting the memorial may do so in an appropriate setting for contemplation, and it also acts as a symbol for the project. The two elements are linked by Purbeck stone paving.") and a few very similar variations on it. As I say above, I strongly suspect the size & shape of the monument is based solely on the fact that it was built around the existing airshaft, with the column's dimensions then built in proportion to it, but in the absence of a source for this have avoided speculating on it. — iridescent 17:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Overall, I'd say it's a pretty decent article, and although there's alot of bullet points above, most of them seem like fairly minor suggestions. So, I've put the articles nomination on hold to give everyone working on the article some time to address/implement my suggestions. Holds typically last 7 days, at which point the article will either be passed or failed. Feel free to drop my a line when/if you feel the article is ready for me to look at it again, and/or if you have any questions or comments. Good luck! Drewcifer (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All said, I'd say this is a pretty good article, so I've passed it's nomination. Good job! The few things I would still recommend is to expand the lead, remove a picture or two, and try and expand on the design. Everything else looks good. Drewcifer (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)