Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hove War Memorial/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 January 2023 [1].

Hove War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell (talk) and Hassocks5489 (talk)

I'm back on the war memorials after a hiatus following the promotion of The Cenotaph. This one is another Lutyens and it's in Hove, on the English south coast. I created the article a few years ago but KJP1 and Hassocks5489 have helped to expand it with some more sources and now I think it's ready for FAC. As always, I'm grateful for any and all feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pickersgill-Cunliffe[edit]

  • Historic England and New Delhi are duplicated links
    • Unlinked.
  • "Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve station" is rather vague, can you elaborate on what it was?
    • I can't find much on it other than that it had a gun emplacement. I think it was a training establishment
  • "and the 1st Battle Squadron"
    • Done.
  • Why did the squadron visit Hove?
    • They were invited by the mayor (added). Though most of the Royal Navy was in the Channel along the south coast anyway.
  • Link declaration on war on Germany
    • I feel that would be a bit of an Easter egg and it's not directly relevant.
  • Link Portslade
    • Done.
  • Link cottage hospital
    • I don't think this one is relevant either.
  • To avoid awkwardly cutting off the regiment's name, would "...serving with the local unit, the Royal Sussex Regiment" work?
    • I didn't think it was awkward; "Royal Sussex" would be how the regiment is referred to when it's clear from context that we're talking about a regiment.
  • Link vestry
    • Done.
  • "first appeared in the vestry notes" when?
    • The sources don't specify, nor do they specify even which publication it appeared in.
  • Do we know who was on the committee?
    • Not from the sources. It was usually the mayor or a deputy and a few prominent locals, especially if they had any expertise in the arts, plus a treasurer.
  • "August 1914", "May 1919", "June 1920", no need to repeat the year
    • Kept June 1920 because the gap is big enough to be worth reminding the reader of the year. Lost the other two.
  • "had decided to proceed to allocate"
    • A relic from redrafting! Gone.
  • While it is inferred, if possible I think it would be good to categorically say why a decorative monument was not the preferred option
    • Added.
  • "grants for widows and orphans" assume these are war widows and orphans?
    • Yes. So added.
  • Link cenotaph and obelisk
    • Done.
  • "The successful design was agreed in March 1920" it's a little awkward describing all the rejected designs but not then saying what the accepted one was - I realise there's a section on it later on, but a word or two would make this work better
    • I've reworked the end of the "commissioning" section and the start of the "design" section a little to hopefully resolve this. Let me know if you think it's still jarring.
  • Link Queen Victoria
    • Done.
  • I'm sure there's some precedent for the way this article is laid out, but it was a little jarring to be launched straight into the description of the memorial as completed without first being told when or if it was completed!
    • See above; I've reworked things slightly.
  • Link Saint George
    • Done.
  • Is there a better way to describe the armour? "Renaissance" is a pretty big topic area
    • It is, but it narrows it to a recognisable era in art history. It's not the armour you'd expect in classical sculpture but it's not WWI-era armour. But the sources don't get any more specific.
  • How was the figure modified from the Frampton design?
    • Frampton appears to have had a template for St George. There are photos online of the other two (besides Fordham) mentioned in the article and George is identical. The only difference at Radley College is that he's in the process of slaying the dragon and at Maidstone he's holding a banner rather than a sword. But the sources don't go into that sort of depth on the similarities.
  • You switch between "Saint" George and "St" George, suggest sticking with one or the other
    • Done.
  • Why not describe the column as Tuscan in the first sentence of the paragraph instead of half-way through?
    • I tried to leave that sentence as plain as possible so that somebody with no knowledge of war memorials or art history could understand what they were looking at, then go into more detail later.
  • Not sure "(the middle section)" is necessary, all it did was confuse me!
    • It was intended as an explanatory gloss to "dado" (which I had to look up!) but if it's confusing can you think of something better?
  • "the project proceeded much more smoothly than elsewhere" provide an example here if you can, otherwise we've just got to guess
    • The books don't specify which projects they have in mind, but the war memorials for York, Leicester, and Norwich (for example) all suffered lengthy delays because of indecision, infighting, or other local political factors.
  • Could link centenary of the First World War
    • Done.
  • "A war memorial committee was established after the war"?
    • I think this can be reasonably inferred, especially as the date of its founding is given as January 1919.
  • Imo the Fordham War Memorial mention in the lede is a little too trivial for its placement there. Would be more useful to include a little on the various opinions espoused about the Hove memorial
    • The sources place quite a lot of weight on this, which is why I've given it the weight I have. Even Pevsner's brief mention goes out of its way to mention Fordham.

That's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Pickersgill-Cunliffe. I've addressed most of your comments with a few replies above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with your responses. Re the dado, having re-read the section I think it works fine. My stupidity rather than the article! Supporting. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

A couple of points to consider (neither of which affect the support):

Lead
  • "It is a grade II listed building": would "listed structure" work better? (Ditto the reference in the History section)
Commissioning
  • The redlink to "statue" looks a little odd (like there isn't an article for statues). Maybe broadening the link so it is "parallel to the statue" to show it's a specific one being referred to?

Your call on these two – I don't press the point on either of them. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SchroCat, great to see you back and thank you very much for the support. I've always preferred "listed building" as the proper term but I agree with you on the statue link. What I should do is write the article for it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891[edit]

  • "one of the first large-scale recruitment events the following month"--> suggest maybe "one of the nation's first large-scale"?
    • Not sure that's not just more words for its own sake. If it's not clear from the context that we're talking about the UK, adding "the nation" won't help, but it's so early in the war (weeks, if not days, after Britain declared war) that the statement can probably stand on its own.
  • Was Conan Doyle's address part of the recruitment event or separate?
    • Yes, clarified.
  • " in the vestry notes section of a local newspaper" would it be possible to date this?
    • Sadly not. As I mentioned to PC above, neither of the books that refer to this even specify which publication they're referring to.
  • "Once the design had been agreed, the project proceeded much more smoothly than elsewhere. Many war memorials were delayed by local disagreements or fundraising problems but Hove's was among the first of Lutyens's to be completed" A phrasing along the lines of "While many war memorials were delayed by local disagreements or fundraising problems, Hove's proceeded relatively smoothly after the design was agreed. The project was among the first of Lutyen's to be completed." would read more naturally to me-- thoughts about rearranging those two sentences?
    • That works nicely. Done.
  • "next to which are metal lamp pillars, which are a modern addition" any possibility of specifying more than 'modern'? Possibly '21st century' or something?
    • The source just says "modern"; my guess would be that they were there in the '90s when it was listed but that's speculation.
  • "Its setting was spacious and quiet when it was first built but has since become busy with traffic" is it still spacious?
    • Relatively, though modern traffic and car parking has encroached.
  • "Hove War Memorial was designated a grade II listed building on 2 November 1992, meaning it is considered to be of special architectural or historic interest." Might just be me, but would it be worth mentioning who does the designation?
    • The process is convoluted and not really not worth getting bogged down in in my opinion.

Quite nice work overall, just some thoughts. Not wedded to any of these at all. I fully anticipate supporting. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie, much appreciated! I've addressed your comments as best I can. Happy to discuss anything further if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses, happy to support on prose Eddie891 Talk Work 23:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments by Nick-D[edit]

It's fascinating to see a fairly modest memorial by Lutyens in the middle of a road! I have the following comments. Please note that I'm going to be out of town and without internet until about 2 January so I'm supporting this nomination subject to the following comments being addressed. I'd ask the FAC coordinators to consider them addressed once HJ Mitchell posts in response: I trust him to follow up appropriately given his previous excellent work in this topic area.

  • "A war memorial committee was established and Lutyens was engaged as architect. A design was agreed after two unsuccessful proposals and Lutyens chose the site from several options." - can dates for these events be provided here?
    • Added.
  • "He became renowned for The Cenotaph in London, which became Britain's national memorial" - this memorial seems to have been developed a bit before The Cenotaph - was Lutyens famed for memorials at the time?
    • The temporary cenotaph was installed in mid-1919 and by itself made Lutyens a household name; his fame only increased when the permanent version was unveiled in November 1920, a year and three months before Hove's (though he was juggling many war memorial commissions at once).
  • "The proposal for a war memorial in Hove first appeared in the vestry notes section of a local newspaper" - can this be dated?
    • You're the third person to ask this but alas not. Two books mention it but neither gives the publication name or date.
      • I ran some searches at the British Newspaper Archive to see if I could find any indication, but there was nothing that could be found there either. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Lutyens designed dozens of war memorials across England, though Hove's was his only one in Sussex" - this wording is a bit awkward
    • Not sure what's awkward about it but happy to consider any suggestions for an alternative.
  • " are metal lamp pillars, which are a modern addition" - do any sources say when they were added? Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eddie asked this above. I would guess they were in place by 1992 when it was listed but the only mention of them in the sources is the listing description, which only says "Immediately alongside each is metal lamp pillar. These are modern, and are not of special interest". Great to hear from you, Nick, and happy to discuss anything when you're back home. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nick ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'm a support here as my minor comments have been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • SAID: can you verify the publisher? It looks like McMillan Martin might have printed this on behalf of an association
  • Suggest adding |ref=none to the Bibliography entries
  • Which volume of Middleton 2002 is being cited? Also be consistent in how you format short cites to this work - sometimes it's title, other times Middleton (ed)
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Skelton short cite lists only Skelton, but other short cites list all authors - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've relied on @Hassocks5489: for SAID and Middleton 2002. Hassocks, could you possibly check your copies and address Nikki's concerns? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @HJ Mitchell: @Nikkimaria: I've only got notes from SAID rather than a physical copy; these say "Published by McMillan Martin for the South East Region of the Royal Institute of British Architects". I can check a physical copy at Brighton or Hove library: if you could let me know whether you need me to check further, I can get to Brighton library on Thursday 5th. I believe I've sorted all the Middleton refs; volume number is now in the reference to Middleton (ed.) (2002). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 23:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks Hassocks! Is there anything we need to add to the bibliography, Nikki? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd suggest including "for the South East Region of the Royal Institute of British Architects" in the publisher string. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks Nikki; now changed. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HJ Mitchell: and @Hassocks5489:, have you addressed the rest of Nikkimaria's issues? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild: I believe so but if there's anything else I'm happy to address it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, what do you think? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • One image does not have alt text.
  • In the second image could either "remembrance service" or "remembrance" be linked.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, thanks for looking! I've added the missing alt text; I'm not sure there's an obvious target for a link on "remembrance" or "remembrance service" but I've linked poppy wreath if that helps with background to the tradition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remembrance day or Remembrance Sunday? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel those would be Easter eggs on "remembrance", otherwise we'd have to shoehorn a mention of Remembrance Sunday into the caption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga[edit]

Good work on this HJ Mitchell as well as Hassocks5489! The article seems comprehensive to me, I just have a few comments:

  • "As in many places, a war memorial committee was formed in Hove " - don't think "in Hove" is needed here.
  • "At the corners of the bottom step are low stone bollards, which are part of the original design, next to which are metal lamp pillars, which are a modern addition" - the sentences has three "which"s so I wondered if you can rephrase?
  • The total cost of the memorial was £1,537 (1920)" - suggest using Template:Inflation to show the cost in present terms.
  • "11 months after the newspaper column which prompted it" suggest "article" for "column" as I was thinking about columns in the sculptural sense.
  • "The main inscription is on the north face: IN EVER GLORIOUS MEMORY OF HOVE CITIZENS WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR COUNTRY IN THE GREAT WAR AND WORLD WAR" - judging by the photograph, the inscription includes 1914-19 and 1939-45. Mujinga (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mujinga, thank you for looking. I'm glad you liked it. I believe I've addressed all your comments except that I personally dislike the inflation template; I don't think it produces a meaningful figure given the number of variables and changes in society in the last 103 years. At least by giving the figure and the date, interested readers can look up the data to do whatever comparison they want (a workman's wage, for example, or the cost of a loaf of bread) rather than being spoon-fed a figure without context. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiya fair enough, I would take the opposite view on the template since I find it helps me understand in real terms what the cost of something was in the past, but happy to disagree on that. Thanks for the other changes, I can now support the nomination. Best of luck for 2023. Mujinga (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2023 (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/Hove_War_Memorial/archive1&oldid=1133272092"