Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tower Hill Memorial

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tower Hill Memorial[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Featured article candidates/Tower Hill Memorial/archive1

The latest in my series on war memorials. Like my previous two nominations, this one is in London. It's the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's only memorial in the capital and Lutyens' only work for the CWGC in Britain. I'm hoping to take this to FAC eventually so nay feedback would be very much appreciated! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ from Hawkeye7

The lead seems to be of two minds as to whether there are two memorials or three
- There are the world war memorials, which were designed to complement each other and act as one, and then there's the Falklands memorial, which is entirely separate except that the site was obviously chosen because of the existing memorials.
Link Act of Parliament in the lead (as it is in the article)
- Done.
"Although military casualties were lower in the second war than the first, civilian casualties were far higher" True, but perhaps misleading to the reader; total casualties in the UK were half those of the Great War.
- I've tweaked this a little.
"by its end there was little appetite for another wave of large memorials" I don't see how this follows from the phrase above
- Copy-edited.
"Instead, many memorials from the first war were adapted or expanded to commemorate the new casualties—an approach the IWGC took at Tower Hill' But they didn't; a new memorial was built
- Although it's an entirely new piece of architecture, it's essentially an extension of the existing memorial.
"Maufe first proposed extending Lutyens' structure with a further colonnade" That would seem logical. I am guessing the problem was thet the casualties of merchant seamen in the Second World War was so much greater than the First, so there was insufficient space. (Which the lead implies.)
- The sources don't specify. The best we get is "this plan was relinquished".
"the area already had maritime connections" As an aside, I live further from the sea than anyone in the UK.
- Heh, I lived in Coventry for a while, which claims to be Britain's furthest city from the sea, and that's only just 80 miles from the nearest coast!
"The low, pitched roof has shallow parapets to either side" on either side?
- If you prefer.
"building new memorials to missing for the most part" I think what is missing is a word or two
- Copy-edited.
"a memorial service is held close to that that date at the Tower Hill Memorial" that date
- Fixed.
Was there an unveiling ceremony for the Falklands memorial like there was for the other two? (Google says "The memorial was dedicated on Merchant Navy Day 4 September 2005 by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West GCB DSC ADC") [1]
- I deliberately wanted to keep the details on the Falklands memorial fairly sparse because it's not the main topic of the article, and that website (although excellent) is a hobby site an so not a reliable source.
  - It is also in your source 47. I was wondering whether it was a drum shaped stone like the one in the First World War memorial. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I suppose it can go in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      It's up to you. I recently refurbished an article on the Falklands War. I remember it happening, but for most readers it was before they were born. I don't know it there is much interest in it today or not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - The tabloids bring it up every now and again, usually in the context of defence cuts meaning we couldn't defend them against a (largely hypothetical) new Argentinian threat. But the average man in the street is likely to know more about the world wars. I guess there might be a resurgence of interest around major anniversaries. But it's not unreasonable to include that titbit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"it is dedicated to the Merchant Navy casualties of the 1982 Falklands War" Eight of the casualties are from the RFA and nine are from the merchant Navy; I'm unsure if there is a difference.
- There is a slight difference, so I've added a mention of the RFA.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support As the grandson of an Australian merchant mariner who survived the torpedoing of his ship off the Australian east coast in 1942, an incident which claimed the lives of five of his shipmates, I'm very pleased to see this article developed to a high standard. I think that the A-class criteria are met, and have only the following minor comment:

The sentence starting with " The Imperial War Graves Commission (IWGC, as it was known until 1960) " is a bit over-complex Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nick-D: Thanks very much. I've pared that sentence back a bit. Out of curiosity, do you know where your grandfather's crewmates are commemorated? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're listed on the memorial to the Australian Merchant Navy in the grounds of the Australian War Memorial, and all five are buried at Sandgate Cemetery in Newcastle, the city off which the ship was attacked. I suspect that they may also be listed on the memorial to the Merchant Navy in Newcastle. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The SS Allara. 23 July 1942. [2] and [3]. CWGC records. We have this photo which is used on the featured article Axis naval activity in Australian waters, which Nick might recognise. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that's the one. The choice of photo in that article isn't a coincidence (the photo in the article of two sailors standing in front of a gun fitted to their merchant ship was also taken by my grandfather). Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        The NSW register of war memorials appears to be a good resource. The SS Allara dead are commemorated (with many others) here (a memorial wall in the cemetery). Anyway, back to Tower Hill! Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Factotem[edit]

Lead

The Imperial War Graves Commission (IWGC) commissioned Lutyens, whose first design was for a massive arch on the banks of the River Thames but this was rejected, to Lutyens' disdain. Slightly odd phrasing to me. Wonder if "The Imperial War Graves Commission (IWGC) commissioned Lutyens, whose first design ~~was~~ for a massive arch on the banks of the River Thames ~~but this~~ was rejected, to Lutyens' disdain." would be better? Also not sure if "disdain" is quite the right word, unless that is the actual word used in the source. Maybe "disgust" or "dismay" would be better? (Suggest "disgust", based on the discussion of this episode in the main body of the narrative).
- Copy edits done. I did look disdain up when I wrote it to make sure I was using it correctly and I do feel it works better than either "dismay" or "disgust" (I'm going for contempt, rather than anger or disappointment) but happy to discuss this further.
...the queen's first use of the device Consider "medium" rather than "device"? (Same again in the History section).
- Medium works fine (done in both places)
...national collection of Lutyens' war memorials and Maufe's Merchant Seamen's Memorial... I think there should be a comma before the "and" here.
- Done.

First World War memorial - Background

The commission was established in 1917 and one of its first principal architects... Another missing comma before the "and"?
- Not sure this is absolutely necessary, but done.
... which the commissioners resolved in 1921 extended to the Mercantile Marine... The use of "resolved...extended" here looks like something got messed up in an edit somewhere. Maybe "...which the commissioners extended in 1921 to include the Mercantile Marine..."?
- Copy-edited for clarity.
...Germany commenced unrestricted submarine warfare as a result of which the British government began grouping vessels into convoys, escorted by warships To me, that comma should come after "warfare", not after "convoys".
- Done.

History

...requested a functional memorial, such as a home for aged seamen, but the commission was set against functional memorials in the belief that they became associated more with their function than with commemoration Over-use of "function(al)" and "memorial" in a single sentence. Maybe "...but the commission was set against this in the belief..."?
- I've tweaked this a bit to reduce the redundancy.
... they did not have the power to give full consent and a special Act of Parliament was required Comma before "and"?
- I think the setnece works fine without it.
The building work was undertaken by Holloway Brothers (London) and the memorial was unveiled by Queen Mary (deputising for her husband, King George V) on 12 December 1928, her first solo engagement of the sort. Comma before "and"? Also, "...of the sort" seems odd. Did she have any previous solo engagements of a different sort?
- Again, not sure this is necessary. I believe this was her first solo engagement as queen representing the king in public, but she had had other engagements.

I read "of the sort" to refer to unveiling monuments, and that she could have, for example, gone solo opening hospitals or the like. Maybe it's referring to the first time she deputised for the king? Either way, it seems odd, and I'm not sure that you need "of the sort" there. Factotem (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite taking place in torrential rain, the unveiling ceremony was attended by a large crowd, who cheered the queen as she was driven away Seems an odd detail to report that the crowd cheered as she left.
- Ha! They were presumably cheering her for her speech rather than for leaving, but that's when they chose to do it.
  - Part of the context here is that the King had been seriously ill (and would be in poor health for the remaining seven years of his life). This is actually mentioned in the description (not sure who wrote that) on the British Pathe site, if you follow the link in the external links: "Her Majesty The Queen greeted by sympathetic crowds - makes first appearance since the King's illness to unveil Mercantile Marine War Memorial. London." I am not sure, but this might be the same illness mentioned here. The date matches. It is also mentioned here: "In November 1928, he fell seriously ill with septicaemia, and for the next two years his son Edward took over many of his duties." (or in this case, his wife). Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Design

...who worked on multiple other war memorials... "multiple" here is, apparently, misplaced formality, and should be replaced with "many".
- I'm not sure that's a misuse of "multiple", but I've changed it to "several".

Second World War memorial - Background

Instead, many memorials from the first war were adapted or expanded to commemorate the new casualties—an approach the IWGC took at Tower Hill and elsewhere, generally only building new memorials to the missing in areas which hadn't been touched by the First World War. Fairly complex sentence which could maybe benefit from being split. Perhaps "Instead, many memorials from the first war were adapted or expanded to commemorate the new casualties—an approach the IWGC took at Tower Hill and elsewhere. Generally, it only built new memorials to the missing in areas which hadn't been touched by the First World War."? Also, what areas are you referring to when you write "in areas which hadn't been touched by the First World War"? Are these geographical areas?
- That works nicely; thanks. And yes, geogrpahical areas; I've changed it to "places".

History

Maufe initially planned a larger grassy area between Lutyens' colonnade and the sunken garden with a Stone of Remembrance at the centre but this was largely eliminated to reduce the overall size of the memorial in order to assuage the concerns of local people, while the depth of the garden had to be reduced at the south end because of a London Underground tunnel Another complex, and to me slightly confusing sentence that needs breaking up. Was it the "larger grassy area" or the "Stone of Remembrance" that was "largely eliminated"? "In order to" is a FAC no-no, as is the use of "while" (instead of "and") as a conjunction.
- Copy-edited this.

Later history

Since 2000, 3 September has been celebrated annually as Merchant Navy Day and a memorial service is held close to that date at the Tower Hill Memorial. Another comma issue, though I confess that the correct use of commas often confounds me. The statements "...3 September has been celebrated annually as Merchant Navy Day..." and "...a memorial service is held close to that date at the Tower Hill Memorial" each have their own subjects and verbs, and can both stand alone, so I believe a comma is necessary before the "and". Happy to be corrected in my long quest for comma enlightenment.
- I think a semicolon works better here. I admit I haven't studided the applications of commas extensively but I generally use them where one would naturally pause while reading and not where a pause wouldn't be necessary.
...and applied to about 5.5% of listings Missing "is" before applied?
- Done.

Nice read as always. Factotem (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: Thank you very much for your thoroughness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On commas, I'm quite sure that in a couple of places you're converting separate clauses into a list by omitting the comma. For example, "...they did not have the power to give full consent and a special Act of Parliament was required" might be read as both consent and a special act were beyond the power of the trustees to give, which then makes the final "was required" out of place. The "and a special Act of Parliament was required" is a separate, related clause with its own subject and verb, hence the need for a comma, as I understand it. I'm certainly no expert, though, and I'm not going to push it. Factotem (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for the record, noting the extra edits I made here. The addition of the British Pathé news reels should be OK. The infobox expansion (to cover both memorials) may have made it a bit bloated. I think using {{multiple image}} hasn't broken the infobox, but there might be better ways to handle that. Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Robinvp11

Interesting read, thank you. The previous reviews have been very comprehensive but a few minor points from me - I did some work for the Marine archaeology trust on WWI wrecks so most of it comes from that :)

That sounds like very interesting work!

Background; I'd suggest Lutyens' role as the creator of New Delhi is more significant than his design of English country houses;

It's not really relevant here but ok.

I agree but if you're going to mention other stuff done by Lutyens at all, more people will recognise the link. You could just take it out.

'Merchant shipping' maybe expand to include fishing vessels - places like Brixham suffered heavy losses and the Memorial does reference this;

Indeed. Brixham has an interesting war memorial of its own.

'particularly after Germany commenced unrestricted submarine warfare, as a result of which the British government began grouping vessels into convoys escorted by warships;' I'm not sure if this matters but ships transporting coal to Cherbourg and Brest were convoyed from very early on in the war ie early 1915 (the French lost their own coal mines, so they were vital). Being really really picky, after unrestricted warfare it became common outside Home Waters.

Do we really need to go into detail on this? The article is about a memorial to those lost at sea and that sentence is just a bit of background on how they were lost.

Again, I agree it doesn't need that level of detail but just add 'Atlantic' or 'outside Home Waters' (you know what happens -there's an argument going on right now as to exactly what day the War of the Spanish Succession started);

On second thoughts, I've taken out the mention of convoys. It's not directly relevant here, though i strikes me that we probably need a general article about merchant shipping during the wars. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'17,000 lives from across the British Empire;' and beyond; I think (but I might be wrong) the WWI Memorial includes anyone who died on a British ship eg there were at least two Japanese (from a South Wales coal ship); maybe needs minor clarification?

Fair point. I've tried to clarify it but you're welcome to see if you can improve it.

Looks good (we're toying with the idea of a project on the global workforce used by the Merchant Marine during WWI ie the two Japanese died on a South Wales collier with a Dane, three Arabs, an Italian, a Swiss and even a German.)

Style; should Commission have a capital C?

Only when the full name is used ("the Imperial War Graves Commission" but "the commission")

Thanks!

Good Stuff Robinvp11 (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinvp11: Thank you very much for looking over it. I hope you found it an interesting read. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image licensing all looks fine to me. Harry, there are a few points immediately above that need attention, otherwise this is ready for promotion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Tyvm. I've addressed Robin's comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robinvp11 (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.