I've worked on this article a couple of times now, a biggish overhaul back in 2020, and then again just now with a more modest tidy and using a few more sources. It's a fantastic example of realism, used as propaganda for the home front, by the greatly under appreciated artist Laura Knight. The intention may be to go on to FAC after this, but it depends on the comments here. -SchroCat (talk)16:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick image review to get you started:
- File:Ruby Loftus screwing a Breech-ring (1943) (Art. IWM LD 2850).jpg and derivatives are good
- File:Bofors Anti-Aircraft Gun, Nothe Fort , Weymouth.jpg looks good
- File:Ernest Bevin visits No 11 Royal Ordnance Factory, Newport, Monmouthshire, Wales, UK, c.1943.jpg looks good
- File:Dame Laura Knight 1936.jpg has problems; the Not-PD-URAA template was only allowed for items uploaded before March 1, 2012, which is a few months before this item was uploaded. I'll be nominating this one for deletion. — Chris Woodrich (talk)16:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- The last one is mildly annoying, especially as we haven't got an alternative, but never mind! -SchroCat (talk)16:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is whether the current FP represents the painting as it exists today. Being in North America, I can only see what the museum has on its website, which has changed in ten years (I uploaded the current FP using Dezoomify in 2015). If the painting has the same high levels of saturation, great. But if it's actually looking faded right now... — Chris Woodrich (talk)01:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- But yes, I did specifically leave it to SchroCat as he's the one working on the article and he's better equipped to see the work in person. — Chris Woodrich (talk)01:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Having seen it recently, the current version is much closer to the original than the previous version, for what it's worth. -SchroCat (talk)05:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am to the visual arts what elephants are to water-skiing, but nonetheless here are a few comments on the prose:
- In the lead, "Loftus was a 21-year-old woman who had quickly become an expert in the production of breech-rings—in seven months, rather than the several years it normally took" – until I got to the relevant part of the main text I took this to mean it took seven months to produce the things rather than seven months to gain the skill to do so. All is clear in the main text, but could be clearer here.
- "considered their abilities to be under used" – the OED hyphenates "under-used"
- "with childcare … With a shortage in the number of women" – you could avoid the repeated "with" by altering the first to something like "childcare and running the household being the probable reasons".
- "a tobacconist's shop in Finchley, London" – you've already told us that Finchley is in London.
- "The picture shows Loftus, bent over the lathe, which is in the act of cutting the screw" – I think I'd leave out the "which is": I'm not sure a machine can be "in the act of" anything, whereas a person can.
- "She wears paint-splattered overalls and make-up…" – The make-up is not paint-splattered. Perhaps something on the lines of "As well as paint-splattered overalls she wears make-up…"?
- "one of the most well-known and popular works" – I wince at "most well". How about "one of the best-known and most popular works"? Same character count.
- "This included in The Times …" – reads rather oddly to me. Possibly something like "It was reproduced in The Times…."?
That's my lot. You are a constant surprise with your repertoire of startlingly contrasting subjects. Did you know that Noël Coward wanted Dame Laura to sketch a portrait ofAneurin Bevan so that he could say Knight was drawing Nye? See you at FAC. –Tim riley talk12:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't in fact my lot: brain catching up with eyes, I think, and indeed have checked in the OED, that "splattered" should be "spattered". I'll try not to delight you with further quibbles.Tim riley talk13:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Your quibbles are always welcome! Many thanks -SchroCat (talk)05:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great topic for a high quality article. I'd like to offer the following comments:
- The background section would benefit from more material on the British official war art program
- The second para of the same section needs to be preceded by material explaining the mass recruitment of women into the war industries prior to 1943
- "although shop stewards from Woolwich Arsenal..." - this should be a separate sentence or two as the current single sentence is rather complex.
- " commissioned by the WAAC.[45] Sending posters to factories was not a common step taken for works commissioned by the WAAC" - the wording here is a bit repeditive
- "The picture shows a woman doing what was traditionally a man's job" - this has already been discussed in the article, so I'd suggest rephrasing this sentenceNick-D (talk)10:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Just acknowledging these: thanksNick-D; all very pertinent and useful. I've just been a bit rushed off my feet with other matters over the last few days, but I'll make sure I address all of these. Cheers -SchroCat (talk)10:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
_(Art._IWM_LD_2850).jpg){kind=link}
_(Art._IWM_LD_2850)%2c_2026_upload.jpg){kind=link}