Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Southend-on-Sea 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) 22 July 2023 [1].

Southend-on-Sea War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell (talk)

I've been going back through some of my older war memorial articles to see if any of them can be improved with the sources I've acquired during my project. There's not a great deal written about this one sadly but Lutyens's handiwork, an interesting design, and a prominent location, plus a detailed newspaper report on its unveiling, and a bit of recent history give us just under 1800 words and a comprehensive summary of the (relatively few) sources available. I first wrote the article way back in 2016 but decided to overhaul it recently after Thryduulf and I took a day trip there while I was passing through London a few weeks ago. Most of the photos in the article are from that trip! I hope you like it, but I'm more than happy to address any feedback. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisThe Dude[edit]

  • "A committee appointed Lutyens, the architect of The Cenotaph, to design a permanent memorial as a replacement for temporary shrines. He originally proposed a variation of the Cenotaph" - The Cenotaph or the Cenotaph?
  • "In front the monument is a garden" => "In front of the monument is a garden"
  • "and the for the North Eastern Railway" - ?
  • "The town was bombed by German Zeppelins" - link Zeppelin
  • "later plaques are affixed" - new sentence so needs a capital
  • Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Chris! All fixed, I think! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

Great work as always. I have the following comments:

  • "Thereafter, he dedicated much of his time to commemorating its casualties" - this makes it sound like he did this as a charity. As I understand it, Lutyens was getting paid for this work.
    • Fair point. Reworded; see what you think.
  • "and home to a military installation and to the north was an aerodrome " - bit clunky
    • Fixed.
  • Most of the material on Southend-on-Sea seems to not align well with this memorial, given it commemorates people from the town who were killed in the war, not people who were based in the town or passed through it. Can you say how many people from the town enlisted? (even roughly)
    • You're right of course but I think a bit of background to a town's role in the war can help explain why they erected the memorial they did. An inland town of the same size not quite so exposed to the war might have gone for a smaller-scale memorial, for example. That stat might be difficult because of the number of different regiments/corps/etc that they could have joined but let me see if I can dig something up.
  • "Instead of engraving the names of the dead on the memorial, the committee decided to emboss the 1,338 names on tablets which would be fixed to the walls of Prittlewell Priory" - do we know why? This seems unusual.
  • It's not massively unusual; the sources don't explicitly say it but it's usually because there's not enough room for all the names and the names are quite often accessible somewhere like a library or a town hall (cf Norwich or Hove).
  • Has there been any commentary on the 2019 soldier statue? From looking the memorial on Google Street view, its addition seems to compromise the design of the memorial, and it isn't in line with Lutyens' approach. I presume that the council would have needed to have obtained approval from the heritage authorities for this change? Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really struggled to find anything on it. I didn't know it was there until I visited and had to dig to find reliable sources to confirm its existence; nobody seems to have picked up on it yet. I would imagine it's a removable addition (ie isn't affixed to anything listed and could be removed without disturbing anything) and therefore wouldn't need listed building consent. I agree it adds an element of literalism that's at odds with Lutyens' classicism; I like the idea but it's maybe not the best site for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. I'd be pretty sure that this kind of change to a heritage listed memorial would be banned here in Australia. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Apologies for the slow response here: I spent most of May travelling, and am only getting back to this review now. My comments are addressed. Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

I have to say I agree with the biographer about the words in the grass – less is more! Ditto with the overkill of the 2019 statue too! Anyway, that's just me being a curmudgeon. Your article has far fewer and less noticeable blemishes and there are just two comments from me:

I don't disagree you. The writing is at least tasteful and in keeping with the the garden. The statue is over-egging the pudding a bit.
Background
  • "Immediately to the east is Shoeburyness, a garrison town and home to a military installation and to the north was an aerodrome (now Southend Airport) which became a naval air station." I had to read this a couple of times, tripping up on the double "and" before I realised what it was saying. It may be worth replacing the second "and" with a semi colon, but I don't press the point.
    • Reworded per Nick; see what you think.
Appreciation
  • "The laurel wreaths on the north and south faces are reminiscent of The Cenotaph": Are they not "reminiscent of those on The Cenotaph", rather than the Cenotaph itself?
    • Can it not be both? The design of the memorial has some echoes of The Cenotaph but the wreaths are the most obvious similarity.

That's really all I have to pick up on here. Another fine article in an excellent series. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SchroCat! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy with that - it was the Shoeburyness sentence that was the stumbling block for me, but it looks good now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7[edit]

Looks good to me, but the MilHist bot reckons that it is Good Article quality rather Featured. Probably something to do with the article size. Some comments to prove that I read it:

  • "Prittlewell Priory, a former religious building and now a museum." Consider saying when it became a museum.
  • "D Company of the 6th battalion, Essex Regiment" Capitalise the "B"
  • Do they ever take the flags down?
  • Link garrison town, Zeppelin, 21 gun salute, borough corporation
  • Consider using the {{inflation}} template

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 all addressed, thank you! I don't think the inflation template produces a useful comparison because so much has changed in that time. I'd love a comparison for what it would cost to build something like this today. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "A committee appointed Lutyens". Is it known when this happened?
    • The sources don't give an exact date, frustratingly. The closest I've got is the year the design was approved.
  • "which contributed to the war effort". Should there be a 'had' in there?
    • Sure, why not?
  • "organisations which contributed to the war effort in the area." I think you mean 'organisations in the area which had contributed to the war effort.'
    • That seems like a distinction without a difference. They contributed in the area and were presumably based in the area.
  • I don't see the Historic England page covering "unprecedented casualties". Could you help me out and quote where you are taking this from? Thanks.
  • " Lutyens ... later built much of New Delhi". I had thought that Indian labourers had done that.
    • It's a fairly common turn of phrase but reworded nonetheless.
  • "the British government began internment of German citizens" → 'the British government began the internment of German citizens'?
  • "twice in May 1915. A second bombing raid in 1917". Would the 1917 raid not be the third?
    • So changed.
  • "a site at the top of the cliffs, which was previously used for a flagpole." Perhaps a tweak to the phrasing?
    • Reworded.
  • "for which Lutyens quoted £5,500." For the design, or was Luytens also in charge of the construction?
    • The sources aren't explicit but Lutyens usually supervised the masonry work but not necessarily the installation on-site.
  • "on the north and south faces on the middle stage of the pedestal." Should that second "on" be 'of'?
    • Yes.
  • Having the image in "Design" left justified seriously messes with the layout of the dedication in several settings.
    • Adjusted.
  • "involved in the local war effort" again. Just checking that the sources don't include any representatives of local organisations who were involved in the national war effort?
    • Still not sure there's more than a semantic difference here?
  • "he mayor and the borough corporation". Can a "borough corporation" be present?
    • I don't see why not, but reworded.
  • "The statue was created by a local sculptor". Is their name known?
    • Added.

Nice work, as usual. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry. Any chance of some TLC for this nom before one of my colleagues times it out? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm limited to my phone at the minute but as soon as I can get to a proper keyboard it's top of my list. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harry, how are we looking now...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harry, are we still waiting for you to address the last, uncommented upon point of mine, or is it done? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I presume that "Southend-on-Sea in the Great War" and the 1921 newspaper are a high-quality reliable source? Otherwise, I see no issue with source reliability and formatting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to doubt their reliability. The newspaper could count as a primary source if we're worried because the only bits I'm using are a first-hand account of the unveiling. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi HJM, just a few minor points...

  • are recorded on plaques at Prittlewell Priory - nearby Prittlewell Priory?
    Hmmm, what I was suggesting here was to locate the priory in relation to the memorial.
    Further down has "1,338 names on tablets which would be fixed to the walls of Prittlewell Priory". Cite 1 HE entry has "A memorial tablet bearing 1,338 names of the fallen was erected at Prittlewell Priory". So we have "near", "fixed to" and "at".
    All I was originally getting at was the location of the priory itself - "on plaques at Prittlewell Priory" --> on plaques at nearby Prittlewell Priory. JennyOz (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - got you! I've changed so that both have "be fixed to the walls of nearby PP", which covers both the location of the plaques and the relative location of the priory. Hopefully that covers all aspects, but please let me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortly after the declaration of war, the - add August 1914 and/or pipe link to United Kingdom declaration of war upon Germany (1914)
  • Southend en route to the front lines - on the Continent or similar?
  • As the war drew on, Southend became an evacuation point - also became? it is referring to soldiers returning from France etc? (just trying to give a picture of coming and going across Channel)
  • Lutyens' war memorials were recognised - Lutyens's per others
  • image soldier statue alt=Bronze statue of of a soldier - remove of
  • image The White Ensign (west side)|alt=Flag carved from stone and painted as the White Ensign (a red cross on a white background with the Union Flag in the top right quadrant) - the Union Flag should be left not right? (top left canton - top left quadrant ie next to staff?)
  • poss categories
    Category:1920s in Essex
    Category:Obelisks in England
    Category:Military history of Essex

That's my lot. JennyOz (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jenny - all covered, I think: please let me know if I've missed anything or you see anything else that needs sorting. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SchroCat. Those changes for my comments are all great, except I've added a note above on the first re the priory.
  • New, caption "The laurel wreaths on the north and south faces are reminiscent of The Cenotaph" - is a sentence needs a full stop?
  • re the "removed the questionable phrase" ie "unprecedented casualties" - on this HE entry, which Harry used (cite 1) in The Cenotaph FA, there is "The losses in the Great War were unprecedented:" (not that he actually used "unprecedented" in The Cenotaph article). So we could return that phrase and add that ref. I don't mind either way. I'll happily add my s'port after seeing what you say about the priory location. JennyOz (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I'll leave it out, even though it's in the source. I can see where Historic England are coming from: it was certainly "unprecedented casualties" as far as the UK was concerned (we hadn't had loss of life through war as great as that), but it certainly wasn't "unprecedented casualties" as far as global matters are concerned - the Mongols and the Taipings both top the overall losses. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SchroCat, all my minor concerns now solved. Thanks also to Harry and Ian of course! JennyOz (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

This isn't that far from promotion but with outstanding comments from Gog and Jenny, and no sign of Harry for a fortnight on WP and over a month at this nom, I'm afraid I'll have to archive it. Harry can certainly re-nom in due course and ping all the reviewers here to expedite the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ian, I've sorted what I think was Gog's remaining comment and done JennyOz's ones too: is it possible to reverse the close until they have had a second chance to look at this again? If not, that's all fine, and I'm sure it will have a smooth ride when Harry returns, but if it's possible to reopen for 24 hours, that would be great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Schro, we really need people to stay on top of their noms but I appreciate your efforts and don't want to be a hard-arse about it, especially as FACbot hasn't processed yet, so okay. Gog has in fact just gone on hols for a few days so won't be able to check but since you've removed the questionable phrase I don't think that's an issue; I'm sure Jenny will be onto this soon as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cheers Ian, that's great. If any more comments come in, I'll deal with them the best I can. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Damn right you will, I think this is the first time I've been convinced to change my mind about a closure and you're responsible...! Anyway I suppose it's good to maintain some flexibility in one's advancing years... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll look in tomorrow. Thanks to Ian and SchroCat for the above exchanges. It's so good to work in such company. Tim riley talk 22:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the stay of execution on this one Ian. Jenny and Gog's comments all now dealt with and both are happy enough to support; KJP, Tim Riley and Cass have also popped in too, so I hope this has cleared any bars to it (unless anyone else spots anything or visits!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from KJP1[edit]

I’ll also review, but it may be a day or so rather than today. As an immediate comment, I share Nick-D’s surprise that the council was able to place the “Tommy” statue in front of the memorial without any fuss. It certainly holds a prominent position, [2] and I’m rather surprised that Historic England doesn’t appear to have had a view. But if there’s nothing on it, then Harry’s coverage is likely as good as we’re going to get. KJP1 (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "The town was a stopping point for soldiers en route to the front and, as the war drew on, several buildings in Southend were converted into hospitals" - this, the last sentence of the first para. in the Lead, doesn't quite work for me. It's because it's trying to cover two points - Southend as an embarkation point for troops going out to the front, and Southend as a disembarkation point for injured troops returning from the front. It was the latter flow that prompted the growth of hospitals in the town. I'd suggest something like: "The town was a stopping point for soldiers en route to the front and, as the war drew on, it also became an important disembarkation point for the evacuation of injured troops. This saw the conversion of several buildings in Southend into hospitals."
  • "Invited guests included the mayor, local clergy, local veterans, and organisations which had contributed to the war effort in the area" - to avoid the duplicate "local", suggest, "Invited guests included the mayor, local clergy, veterans from the district, and organisations which had contributed to the war effort in the area."
Commissioning
  • "On Peace Day, 23 July 1919" - I don't have the Clamp Source, but are we sure that Peace Day was on 23 July 1919? This, [3], suggests it was the 19th. It's also a little confusing, as the war ended the year before. Perhaps re-write the opening of the para as; "The formal end of the war, brought about by the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919, saw celebrations in Southend and elsewhere. Four days of commemorative events began with a military parade in London on 19 July<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/100215|title=This month in history: Peace Day, July 1919|publisher=[[The London Gazette]]|access-date=21 July 2023}}</ref> and on 23 July a fleet review was held in the Thames Estuary and the assembled warships fired a 21-gun salute."
  • I've got Clamp, and they have 23 July, which is a bit odd. I can't find anything through the British Newspaper Archive that would clarify things (the weekly Southend Standard and Essex Weekly Advertiser doesn't seem to cover it all for either date! I've reworded per your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Design
  • "The only sculpture on the obelisk is a laurel wreath on the north and south faces of the middle stage of the pedestal" - being picky, aren't there two wreaths, i.e. "The only sculptural features on the obelisk are two laurel wreaths on the north and south faces".
History
  • Following on from User:Nick-D's comment on the "Tommy" statue, I did a little digging and unearthed this, [4]. It's clear that planning permission was required, that the listed setting was considered, and that Historic England didn't object, although somebody did. I'd probably include the citation. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://democracy.southend.gov.uk/documents/s35728/Report%20of%20Deputy%20Chief%20Execurtive%20Place.pdf|title=Erect bronze statue of soldier in front of Cenotaph War Memorial (Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission)|publisher=Southend City Council|date=13 September 2019|access-date=21 July 2023}}</ref> If there was a Footnotes section, I might also put something in there but I don't want to stray too far from Harry's overall structure.
  • I've added their opinion about it "adding a further layer of meaning" with the citation. I'm not sure I agree with them at all, but I think that view should probably be reflected. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is indeed on a par with Harry's usual standard, and I'd be pleased to support its promotion to FA when the above have been reviewed. Any queries, just ping me. KJP1 (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KJP1. The changes all made in this series of edits, hopefully appropriately, although please feel free to tweak and/or amend where you feel appropriate. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat - They fit the bill admirably, and I'm very pleased to Support. And thanks to you for picking it up. As to the "Tommy", on a personal level, I'm astonished HE liked it. I think it seriously detracts from the monument and from its setting. It's slam-dunk in the middle of the flight of steps which form the base of the memorial! And, for me, sentimental and mawkish to boot, in contrast to the classical severity of the original design. But as our personal opinions count for naught on here, I think you've reflected the Source very well. KJP1 (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's great - thanks very much KJP! - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

The article seems to me of the high quality we have come to expect from Harry on such topics. A few quibbles:

  • Lead
  • "the writing in the grass detracted from it" – in the Appreciation section it is described as "the lettering in the grass" which seems to me far preferable. I don't think you can write in grass, but "lettering" is clear and accurate.
  • Background
  • "a seaside resort on the Thames Estuary, 40 miles (60 kilometres) east of London" – later on we have "a height of approximately 11 metres (36 feet)" – might it be as well to have metric first and imperial second – or vice versa – for both measurements?
  • Commissioning
  • "previously the location a flagpole" – missing an "of" I assume.
  • "an obelisk, for which Lutyens quoted £5,500" – not clear what the £5,500 covered. Was it just the architect's design fee or did Lutyens contract to provide the finished structure for that sum? I'm guessing it was the latter, but if we are quoting a sum it ought to be clear what it was for.
  • According to the Clamp source, it was for the design only. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say! A nice little earner for Lutyens. I've tweaked your revision, for grammatical reasons, but by all means re-tweak if wanted. Tim riley talk 09:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
  • "It was dedicated by the Right Reverend Dr John Watts Ditchfield, Bishop of Chelmsford" – do we usually give a bishop his "Dr" when mentioning him?
  • By "we" I didn't mean the Church of England, but Wikipedia, but I don't press the point. Tim riley talk 09:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciation
  • "The laurel wreaths on the north and south faces are reminiscent of The Cenotaph" – says who? I know it's in a caption, but I don't think there is a mention in the text of this specific comparison (the "subtle echoes" discerned by Alan Borg are hardly so specific).
  • Nothing I can see. I've tweaked it for now, but if there is a source, Harry can add it back in later. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I'm not sure where these comments leave matters if Harry is not around at present. I'd like the third and fifth points addressed before I add my support; the other three are of minor importance and wouldn't affect my support. – Tim riley talk 08:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Tim riley talk 09:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim - much obliged. - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

  • Mentioned elsewhere, but “…the words "lest we forget" are written in stone on a lawn”, to me, is far inferior to “… the words "lest we forget" are set in stone on the lawn”. We even go on to describe it as “lettering in the grass” later in the same paragraph, and elsewhere in the article.
    • I swapped it out for "set in stone". - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • “...the names of the 1,338 dead from Southend are recorded on plaques fixed to the walls of nearby Prittlewell Priory.” It would be misleading for the memorial to be described as being "nearby" the priory as they are 1.6 miles apart.
  • “Southend-on-Sea War Memorial was designated a Grade II listed building on 23 August 1974.” – Do we need the full name of the memorial, given that there are no mentions of any others memorials and we start the previous paragraph with “the memorial”? CassiantoTalk 13:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Swapped "Southend-on-Sea War Memorial" with "The memorial" so the section begins with the full name. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Cass, great to see you back at FAC again. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a support from me; thanks for saving this from being archived, G - great to see such team work. CassiantoTalk 19:52, 19 July 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/Southend-on-Sea_War_Memorial/archive1&oldid=1166659129"