Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Portsmouth War Memorial

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Portsmouth War Memorial[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Portsmouth War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I haven't brought a war memorial here for a while. This one's not even Lutyens! I visited Portsmouth in August this year (actually to see another war memorial!) and was impressed with this one; I knew of it in passing but was surprised it had no article at all so when I was looking for a small project, I decided to set that right. Turns out, almost all the source material I needed was already sat on my bookshelf. Sadly, it also turns out that some of the best photos we have available are the ones I took on my phone on a rainy day before I had to run for a train (which was then delayed!). Anyway, here is the result of that project. It's reached the point where I'd appreciate some outside input, so all comments and feedback are warmly welcomed! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll get to this over the next couple days. Hog Farm Bacon 18:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The City of Portsmouth War Memorial, also referred to as the Guildhall Square War Memorial is a First World War memorial in Guildhall Square in the" - Since "also referred to as the Guildhall Square War Memorial" is an appositive, it should have a comma after Memorial
    • You're absolutely right.
  • "The mayor, John Timpson, launched an appeal with a letter to the local newspaper, the Hampshire Telegraph and Post on 27 December 1918" - Ditto above, I do believe there should be a comma after Post. (Disclosure: I'm a rural American who struggles with copyediting at times, so I may be wrong)
    • And again.
  • "but the quote of just under £20,000 (approximately equivalent to £881,000 in 2016) exceeded the available budget and the architects were instructed to scale back their design" - What was the initial budget?
    • We don't really know. One source says £20k but I think that's confusing the cost estimate. They certainly had a healthy budget but they wanted to leave something for the hospital.
  • "and Walter Gordon was selected by an assessor from the Royal Institute of British Architects" - When
    • Early 1919 (added). Can't find an exact date in the sources.
  • "In the 1970s, Guildhall Square was redeveloped and the war memorial was reduced in size slightly from an oval shape to a round one and some elements were rearranged to fit." - So evidently, this must predate the 1972 listing. Was there any connection between these changes and the listing (which would have prevented such changes in the future)
    • Hard to tell but unlikely. Listing has only been around since the 1950s and buildings (or structures) usually have to be of a certain age. It's more likely that it wasn't listed before because the criteria were narrower. And it's not impossible that the modifications would have been approved, it's just a really convoluted process!
  • If we're being really technical here, the exact date of listed building status is never directly cited; you have to follow through the reference number citation to get to it.
    • You're right, but the short answer is there's a link right below it in the infobox and it's in the list entry, which is cited multiple times.

Good work. Not much to pick on at all. Hog Farm Bacon 21:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog Farm! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, excellent work here. Hog Farm Bacon 00:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Harry's back!!!!

  • Ah, the Vic and the Lewis gun. Both retired before I was born, but the oldies would tell you haw much fun the Vic was to fire. Water cooled and belt fed, it could go all day. We had the Gun, but it just wasn't the same. Didn't know there was a monument to them.
    • Jagger was known for his realistic depictions. If you like these you'll love this enormous howitzer on Hyde Park Corner!
      Oh wow! A 9.2-inch howitzer! They were used by the 2nd Siege Battery AIF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Expeditionary Force is a disambig. Although I don't think the Second World War version ever comes to anyone's mind first.
    • Would never have guessed that the WWI version wasn't the obvious primary topic there and I hate dabs with only two entries, but oh well!
  • Spelling errors: "dignataries", "erceted"
    • And that's the advantage of a dispassionate eye! Fixed.
  • I don't know if all readers will realise that the "major naval base" and the "dockyard" are the same thing.
    • How about "naval dockyard"? Just in case Portsmouth's naval connections were a bit too subtle! ;)
  • Consider using the {{inflation}} template to provide a contemporary value eg £20,000 (equivalent to £938,000 in 2019)
    • I have mixed feelings about these. It feels like comparing apples and pears (similar, but not the same). But done anyway.

All looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye! I never left in spirit but life is busy and Covid is only making work busier! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, there has only been one case here in the ACT since June (a returning diplomat). Stay Safe! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 21:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

This is a nice tidy article. A few observations/suggestions:

  • Shouldn't the title be City of Portsmouth War Memorial rather than Portsmouth War Memorial?
    • I thought about this but I think the current title fits better with WP:CONCISE; also, it wouldn't always have been Portsmouth City War Memorial as Portsmouth was only granted city status in 1926.

Lead

  • ...a committee was established. I suggest "...a committee was established for this purpose."
    • Done.
  • Archways in the wall lead out of Guildhall Square... The previous sentence refers to walls (plural). The images suggest a continuous single war.
    • Indeed. Done.
  • A monument to that conflict was added to site in 2005. I suggest "A monument to that conflict was added to the site in 2005.
    • Done.

Background

  • Suggest linking to British Army when army first mentioned.
    • Done.
  • ...other stations in the empire. I suggest "...other stations in the British Empire."
    • I'm not sure this is necessary, but done.
  • chronologically, I suggest moving the sentence beginning "Immediately prior..." to before the sentence beginning "Around 6,000..."
    • Done.
  • I'm not going to die in a ditch over it, but I feel that the discussion on Jagger feels out of place here as it is out of context as the reader has not been introduced to him (apart from the lead of course). To my mind, it belongs more on his first mention in the next section.
    • I see where you're coming from but it is "background", in that the reader doesn't need it to understand the subject, but it provides useful context, and I'd rather not break up the story of the memorial's inception to tell the reader about the sculptor.

Commissioning

  • ...the Treaty of Versailles, officially ending hostilities,... suggest "...the Treaty of Versailles that officially ended hostilities,"
    • Done.

Design

  • I note that walls are referred to in the plural here (as opposed to the lead, as per my comment above).
    • Good point. Done.
  • ...with other historic buildings in the area, including the guildhall... Shouldn't that be "Guildhall"?
    • Done.

History

  • In the caption for the image in this section, suggest "unveiled in 2005"
    • Done.
  • ...funds raised by the war memorial fund... shouldn't this be the "funds raised by the war memorial committee"? There is no context for the war memorial fund otherwise.
    • Good catch.

References

  • Should the citation list be before the bibliography?
    • This is the way I normally do it. I'm not sure why but I quite like it so I've stuck with it. It comes up from time to time but it's never been a deal breaker.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: All addressed, I believe. Many thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

  • Bibliography: Q comes before S.
    • I knew that! Leave me alone! ;)
  • "the Royal Navy launched a 101-gun salute off the Portsmouth coast". I cannot find mention of this in cite 1; could you guide me to it?
  • "Several local churches proceeded with their own commemorations and each parish had kept its own roll of honour". Likewise.
  • "a site near the Town Hall (renamed the Guildhall in 1926 when Portsmouth was granted city status)". Again.

Harry, this isn't like you. Am I missing something? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. I'd put the cite in the wrong place. Those details are actually from Quail, not Historic England. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments[edit]
  • "the Royal Navy launched a 101-gun salute off the Portsmouth coast". I believe that a gun salute is fired rather then launched.
    • You're the naval historian. I'll defer to you! ;)
  • "The committee decided erect a memorial". Missing word?
    • Fixed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems to have shot through the process. I look forward to assailing it more thoroughly at FAC. Meanwhile, the sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Portsmouth_War_Memorial&oldid=987417296"