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 Ian Rose ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 23:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Southampton Cenotaph
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell ( talk), Hchc2009 ( talk)
Southampton Cenotaph ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Yet another war memorial. This one indicates that my project is nearing completion; it's my second-to-last article on Lutyens' memorials in England. This was a very early WWI memorial, Lutyens' first to be completed in permanent form, and it influenced his subsequent war memorial work. It was already in gestation when Lutyens was commissioned for his most famous war memorial, the Cenotaph in London. The bulk of the article was written by Hchc2009, who took it to GA status in 2012. Since then, Historic England has recognised its significance by upgrading it to a grade I listed building (essentially one of the 10,000 most important buildings and structures in England) and improved its listing description, which I've used, along with a few other new sources, to expand the article and bring it into line with my recent articles.
All being well, I'll be taking this to FAC in due course, so any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Nick-D
As always, this article is in great shape. I have the following comments and suggestions:
- "and was influential on" - could this be replaced by just 'influenced'?
- Done.
- The second para of the Background section could be broadened to discuss the number of people from Southampton who served in the military during the war, and the number/proportion who died. In particular, I'm concerned that it only notes volunteers for the Army, and not the large number who would have been conscripted. As Southampton is a port town, I imagine that lots of people from it also served in the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy.
- Okay, I've been back through Eddlestone, which is the only source that deals with Southampton in WWI. He mentions the Military Service Act in passing (literally a sentence) once and there's nothing else on conscripts in the entire book. I've added a little bit about merchant seamen. Clearly a few Southamptonites did join the navy as there's a report of a dozen or so of them being killed at Jutland but Southampton was mostly a civilian port; nearby Portsmouth was (and is) the naval dockyard.
- "Lutyens argued against the committee's initial proposed location on Asylum Green in favour of Watts Park, which the committee agreed to." - do we know why Lutyens didn't like that location?
- The sources don't say, but Lutyens was ... particular about choosing his own sites and frequently rejected sites that were chosen for him.
- "Southampton's cenotaph features a slender cross, though Lutyens was reluctant to feature overtly religious symbolism on his memorials" - do we know if the cross was part of Lutyens' design, or was it insisted upon by the local committee? (presumably the later)
- Kushner implies that the committee added it at the last minute, which is odd given that Lutyens fought hard (and won) against attempts to put a a cross on the Whitehall cenotaph.
- On that topic, can more be said about why a design which was unacceptable to an important, but often discriminated against, group was selected and not changed when concerns were raised? Was this due to antisemitism? If it wasn't, it seems to have been a terrible error of judgement.
- The 'cross lobby' was strong when it came to war memorials—most British war memorials are either a cross or have a cross engraved on them, and all IWGC cemeteries ended up with one (to Lutyens' disdain). There was a strong feeling that a cross was the only 'proper' symbol for the commemoration of the dead. There's nothing explicit in the sources, but my guess is that the advocates of the cross didn't even consider the effect it would have on the Jewish community.
- Fair enough. As I understand it, casual bigotry/chauvinism was a much bigger issue in the UK than outright antisemitism at this time. As a random note, the diversity of religions acknowledged at some CWGC cemeteries is very impressive (Kranji War Cemetery in Singapore acknowledged a religion I didn't even know existed), but this is rather uneven. Nick-D ( talk) 22:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- The 'cross lobby' was strong when it came to war memorials—most British war memorials are either a cross or have a cross engraved on them, and all IWGC cemeteries ended up with one (to Lutyens' disdain). There was a strong feeling that a cross was the only 'proper' symbol for the commemoration of the dead. There's nothing explicit in the sources, but my guess is that the advocates of the cross didn't even consider the effect it would have on the Jewish community.
- I presume that the memorial survived the bombing of Southampton in World War II without damage? (as I understand it, all the main port cities on the south coast were badly damaged)
- Pevsner and Historic England would certainly note any post-war repairs so it would seem not.
- Were the names of the Jews killed in World War I (and subsequent conflicts) included on the glass panels? - this is implied, but it would be good to clarify this.
Nick-D (
talk) 22:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- The only decent sources on the panels are contemporary news reports and they simply don't say anything about the Jewish names. Alas, Kushner (the source for the stuff on the Jewish names) was published five years before the panels were installed.
@ Nick-D: Replies inline. Thanks very much for looking! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Support My comments are now addressed. I'd suggest making contact with any local historical societies and/or the local council before this goes to FAC to see if they can help with the details - knowing whether the Jewish soldiers are now acknowledged would be particularly useful. I'd be surprised if this issue hasn't been resolved, especially now that sectarianism isn't generally a big deal. Nick-D ( talk) 22:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Catrìona—addressed
I would consider trimming the lede a bit. For a fairly short article, the lede is pretty long. Catrìona ( talk) 04:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- @ Catrìona: Fair point. I was having trouble concisely conveying its significance. I've pared it back a bit and I'd welcome your feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Carcharoth
- Support, great to see such a quick response on the photos! There are more on the talk page as well, plus some thoughts there from other editors that should be addressed. On the use of War Memorials Online site, that should, IMO, be included in external links as their pages invariably have content that is of interest to readers. The reliability of the various war memorial sites and registers (including the IWM one) would be an interesting discussion! More on the relationship between the IWM, English Heritage, the WMT and WMO is here. @ Gog the Mild and HJ Mitchell: Carcharoth ( talk) 16:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Couple of comments:
- Why pine cones? From our article: "In Christian symbolism, they are closely related to the tree of life". Is this the reason for their use here? And do sources say what the lions are intended to represent?
- It may be worth mentioning that John Seely was an MP at the time (i.e. a politician as well as a general), and/or making clear that a Lord Lieutenant was (at the time) more a military figure than the titular figures they have become.
- It is a pity there is no available design drawing or photo of the carved recumbent soldier (not very visible). In lieu of that, I'll prepare a cropped version of the highest resolution image to show some of the sculptural details. The cropped image is here (showing the lions and eastward coat of arms). Ideally, we would also have a picture of the west side (I uploaded this image from geograph which seems to indicate that trees obscure this view) and a close-up showing a names panel.
Carcharoth ( talk) 12:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi
Carcharoth, thanks for looking!
- I'm sure I read somewhere that pine cones were a symbol of eternity in humanist traditions, but I can't remember where (it may well have been Wikipedia); I've been back through the books and I can't find it. I'll keep looking. One of the books describes the lions as guarding the sarcophagus, but that appears to be the author's interpretation; there's nothing specific about Lutyens' intent behind them.
- Seely was clearly chosen because he was the lord lieutenant (lords lieutenant unveiled quite a few war memorials, being the monarch's representative in the county) and we have a link to both his biography and the article on the position if readers want to know more.
- I agree the selection of images available is disappointing. I'm hoping to get to Southampton to take some photos, probably in the spring, and I've made requests to local Wikipedians and on the UK mailing list which I'm hoping will result in some more photos. I've added your cropped version to the article so that we at least have a nice illustration of the lions and the coat of arms. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, pine cones were symbolic of eternal life (being regarded as the "seed" or "fruit" of the evergreentree) - and in European heraldry, I think, used to symbolise death and eternal life. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- NB: Was down in Hampshire visiting the family, so swung by and took advantage of the decent winter sunshine today for a few more photographs. Feel free to use if useful!
Hchc2009 (
talk) 17:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for those! I've found the book that mentions the significance of the pine cones so I'll add something on that shortly.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @ Carcharoth: I found and added the detail about the symbolism of pine cones (plus some background), and I've added a gallery of three of Hchc's photos. See what you think. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for those! I've found the book that mentions the significance of the pine cones so I'll add something on that shortly.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
_2014.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
CommentsSupport by PM
This article is in great shape. A few minor comments:
- "As elsewhere, many
manmen" - suggest "completed
toon time" - suggest "a similar effect
iswas later"
That's me done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks again,
PM! I've tweaked everything as you suggest.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 13:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Supporting. Great job on this! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Source review by Gog the Mild - Pass
- I have tidied up some cites: added spaces; added "p.". Let me know if you object.
Bibliography
- In the bibliography publishers should only be Wikilinked at first mention. Eg Pen and Sword Books.
- Likewise places of publication. Eg Barnsley.
- Kushner needs its page numbers within Taylor.
- It is unusual to list Taylor separately when it is only there as the host publication for Kushner. I am prepared to accept this at A class, but if this were FAC I would be questioning why they are not run together.
- War Memorials Online seems to be a publicly accessible and openly editable site. Why should it be considered a RS?
- Hi
Gog, thanks for taking a look and thanks for the fixes. I've combined Kushner and Taylor as you suggest; that was Hchc's format and normally I'd defer to him but I see this came up in the GA review as well. As for wikilinking, I tend to treat each entry like an individual list item so that it's useful to the reader in its own right (for the same reason we do it in list articles, and that we don't use ditto marks or ibid) and it's been accepted in many previous ACRs and FACs, though it's not a hill I'm going to die on. As far as I can tell WMO's database is centrally maintained but there's scope for public comments; it's only included as proof that the International Brigade memorial actually exists.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 10:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi HJH. Re wikilinking, your preference is also mine, but I have been picked up on it in five of my last six ACRs or FACs. Given that the guidance on Wikilinking is clear, I have stopped arguing. However, I am happy to be persuaded by your cogent argument, and good luck with it at FAC.
- I have put Kushner in alphabetical order and added the page numbers. You will want to check this.
- The last snag, WMO. The organisation seems impeccable, with a fine set of sponsors. However,
this page seems to make it clear that anyone can register and edit. So it does not, to my eye, meet Wikipedia's criteria for a RS. I am more than happy to be talked out of this, but I am afraid that the emphasis is on you to establish that it is a RS. It may be easier to source this information to somewhere else?
Gog the Mild (
talk) 23:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's a pity. It was nice to have a third-party source to verify the existence of the IB memorial, but not essential so it's gone. As for wikilinking in the bibliography, I don't recall it being a problem in previous FACs so I'll take my chances, and if someone decides to make it a problem in this one, we'll see what the counter-argument is. :) Thank
you again for the review.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I wanted to talk myself out of it. Especially as I don't doubt the information. If you do get challenged on the Wikilinking, and do "win" the argument, I would appreciate it if you could ping me in. Gog the Mild ( talk) 23:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's a pity. It was nice to have a third-party source to verify the existence of the IB memorial, but not essential so it's gone. As for wikilinking in the bibliography, I don't recall it being a problem in previous FACs so I'll take my chances, and if someone decides to make it a problem in this one, we'll see what the counter-argument is. :) Thank
you again for the review.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi
Gog, thanks for taking a look and thanks for the fixes. I've combined Kushner and Taylor as you suggest; that was Hchc's format and normally I'd defer to him but I see this came up in the GA review as well. As for wikilinking, I tend to treat each entry like an individual list item so that it's useful to the reader in its own right (for the same reason we do it in list articles, and that we don't use ditto marks or ibid) and it's been accepted in many previous ACRs and FACs, though it's not a hill I'm going to die on. As far as I can tell WMO's database is centrally maintained but there's scope for public comments; it's only included as proof that the International Brigade memorial actually exists.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 10:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Summary
The sources are all solidly reliable, with a sole possible exception queried above. 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. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild ( talk) 04:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Hchc2009 commment
Wouldn't be appropriate for me to formally vote/support, but I think HJ's done a good job here! Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Image check by Zawed - Pass
For sake of completeness, I have reviewed the images used to illustrate this article, all have been self-published and uploaded with appropriate tags. Zawed ( talk) 21:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)