Talk:Southampton Cenotaph

Others designed by Lutyens too

The blub for The Cenotaph, Southampton DYK reads a bit oddly as the 'apart' suggests that Lutyens only designed the Cenotaph and the one at Southampton - he designed the one in Leicester as well, and I'm sure I'd probably find more if I googled it. 86.133.212.188 (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep - I believe after Southampton he did Whitehall, and then went on from there. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Cenotaph, Southampton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 17:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers - will fix the below tommorow, Hchc2009 (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • No dead links or dab links present in the article.
   • "The Memorial Wall included a total of 2,368 names from the First World War," What names were added that increased the total from 1,997 in 1922? Were the Jewish names added at this point?

   • The source didn't say; I'm presuming they were the results of later family lobbying, but can't be sure. I don't think the Jewish names were ever added, but that's simply because I don't remember reading that they had been, rather than a hard fact. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   • How unfortunate. Well, if you ever run across a source with this information, I think it would be very interesting to add.

   • "The white Portland stone exterior hides a brick core, faced by relatively thin sheets of white Portland stone." - A bit repetitive.

   • Ugh, yes. Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Spotchecks show no concerns with copyvio or sources not covering what they should.
   • I see a few books listed in the Bibliography that are not used in the References: Taylor, Miles, Compton. Is there a reason for these to be listed?

   • I'd followed the style for listing the edited volumes separately (so Kushner is in Taylor (ed), and you then list Taylor on its own line. I'm more than happy to adjust to give the full edited volume title in the same line. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   • Oh, duh. That makes complete sense now. I still don't see any use of the Malcolm Miles book, though?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • All image licenses look good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A couple of minor issues with prose and one with references - all should be easy to take care of. Overall, a very nice little article - quite interesting to read. I look forward to passing it once the above issues have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! One final issue with the references, but it is so minor that it really isn't even part of the GA criteria, IMO. Due to that, I am going to pass the article to GA status as is. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Background

Is the comment on President Wilson's visit really relevant? Come to that most of the bit about the use of the Port of Southampton during the Great War is more relevant to the article on the port than here. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I was in two minds about Wilson. I decided to include him because I thought it was an interesting anecdote about the aftermath of the armistice but I'm not wedded to it. The rest I think is relevant. The effect of the war on the town helps us to understand why they decided to build such a grand war memorial. I may well tweak it or add or remove bits as I go through. I tend to get all the information in from one source at a time and then go back through and revisit where everything goes to make a coherent narrative (I've been working my way through all of Lutyens' war memorials and I'e followed a similar pattern for all of them; see User:HJ Mitchell/War memorials if you're interested). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Wilson is definitely superflous for this page. His visit has no bearing on the decision to erect the memorial. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

I seriously don't agree with subsuming this into the history section. It is a seperate memorial that happens to be co-located on the same site. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't need its own section just because it's not part of the cenotaph, and there's not enough to say about it to sustain a section (it took a surprising amount of Googling to dig up a reliable source for its existence). There are few things less tidy than a one-sentence section. I'm not even convinced that including a photo of it isn't giving it undue weight but we have very limited photos of the cenotaph on Commons. Its relevance to this article is that it was installed next to the cenotaph, for which it deserves a passing mention in the interests of this article being complete. I think the treatment it gets in the current version is fair. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

OK Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

You have totally mis-understood the reason or there being a separate memorial to the International Brigade casualties. This was due to semi-offical resistance to them being added to normal war memorials. In fact the Southampton one is the ony such memorial I know of. I feel the separate section should be reinstated or delete the whole thing. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I understood the reason but it's not really relevant to the cenotaph. There seem to be a handful of them dotted around the UK. It's also very difficult to find a third-party source that confirms much more than its existence—the information about it in the article is pretty much all the information that's easily available (I can't even find an unveiling date). There's simply not enough to say about it to justify its own section, and besides, we don't have a separate sections for the four other smaller memorials that are co-located. We couldn't. It would just be clutter. Have a look at Manchester Cenotaph (a featured article) for how the Italian memorial is handled there, for example, or the Tower Hill Memorial (another FA) for how the Falklands memorial is covered; neither have their own section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The other smaller memorials all relate to what one might call official conflicts that the Cenotaph itself memorialises. The point of the SCW memorial is that it is added almost in defiance of officialdom and is deliberately segregated from the main memorial. Hence why I think it out to be slightly separated.

But that's bordering on original research and it massively overstates its significance in relation to the cenotaph. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, why have you shuffled the images around? I had originally taken care to place them so they were adjacent to the relevant text. Now they just appear to be scattered at random in the article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to incorporate as many images as possible without too much sandwhiching, but you might be right. I've revised the layout a bit. If you think it needs more work you're welcome to have a go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I've taken on board your comments and removed the photo of the SCW memorial as it overwhelms the section on subsequent additions. I've done a slight re-arrangement of the text to emphasise the separate nature of the SCW memorial, hope that satisfies both of us! As to the other images I've repositioned a couple where I think they are more suitable. I'm of the opinion that the image you put in and then took out should possibly go back in the main section as it illustrates the actual form of the monument being described. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy with your reorganisation. And I've re-added that image. Feel free to tweak things if you think it needs more work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Grade/grade

In the case of listed buildings, conventionally Grade (x) is treated as a proper noun, just as the actual level is displayed in Roman, rather than Arabic numerals. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I know Historic England treat it that way, and I see the editors of our article Listed building have done likewise, but I haven't seen anything to suggest it's a widely followed convention. Still, not worth losing sleep over. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Views from each side

• 
• 
• 
• 

©Geni (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Image gallery

A couple of observations, adding the close-ups renders the second image at the top the section superfluous, it is now neither one thing or the other. Secondly the gallery size is a bit overwhelming, a height of around 150-160 pixels would be better balanced. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

PS shame about the seagull! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Pink Floyd’s “Southampton Dock”

Roger Waters wrote a poignant song about this memorial for a Pink Floyd album, The Final Cut. Shouldn’t it be mentioned in this article? 2600:6C4A:1B7F:FBF0:71BE:FA19:DEB0:387C (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe as a see also (Southampton Dock), but the article doesn't references this memorial. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The lyrics don't obviously reference the cenotaph in Southampton, they are just as likely to refer to the one in Whitehall. I don't see that as warranting inclusion here. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)