Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Royal Naval Division War Memorial

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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 Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Royal Naval Division War Memorial

edit
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Royal Naval Division War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

My last nomination of 2017! You'll be shocked to see that it's another war memorial, this one barely half a mile from my previous nomination. The history of this one is recorded in remarkable detail and several famous names were involved in it, so it's a slightly longer article than some of my previous ones. Completion of this one leaves just four of Lutyens' memorials still to be tackled in the last year of the WWI centenary. I hope you enjoy! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7

Last nomination for 2017 at twelve minutes to midnight zulu? (Images of you editing Wikipedia at a party.)

  • "General Sir Archibald Paris" should be "Major General Sir Archibald Paris" in the lead and body
  • Are we hyphenating general officers ranks or not? Example of both in the article.
  • Hyphenating; I believe that was the common style at the time.
  • Should in situ be italicised?
    • Not something I have a strong opinion on, but I think it's a common enough term that it's been adopted into English (cf. "en route", which is also used)
  • "established a campaign" We don't usually use this wording, and "established" is used again in the next sentence. Suggest using another word.
Looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Hawkeye! Happy new year my friend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Happy new year Harry. Hope I can make it back to Europe in 2018. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye. Let me know of you do and we'll try and arrange a pint. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Harry, not a lot stood out to me. I have a couple of minor points: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are a few duplicate links: Horse Guards Parade, Whitehall, Gallipoli Campaign, Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty
    • All reduced except Whitehall, which is directly relevant to where it's mentioned.
  • "Royal Naval Division - WW1": should be an endash
    • Done.
  • "Quinlan, p. 239–240" --> "Quinlan, pp. 239–240"
    • Done.
  • "Designated: 6 March 2008" and "Reference no. 1392454": mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body of the article
    • The year is in the body, the date in this case is not especially important (sometimes listing/upgrading is done to coincide with an anniversary but not in this case); the reference number is also not especially important, but handy if one wants to look it up in the NHLE.

Much appreciated, Rupert! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close to a supportSupport

  • "Surviving members formed a committee," - I know what's meant here, but at the back of my mind I was thinking that "the members that didn't survive would have been very unlikely to form a committee". Don't know if there's a better way to say this?
    • You have a point. I've gone with "former members" but I'm open to suggestions if you can think of something better.
  • "and upgrade to grade II* " - "upgraded"
    • Oops, typo! Fixed.
  • "when Historic England deemed Lutyens' war" - not sure that "deemed" is quite right here (seems a bit, informal...) "declared"?
    • Fair enough.
  • "these were among the least controversial of Lutyens' war memorials" - true, but the way it's put here in the background section begs the question by the reader as to which of the memorials were controversial.
    • I'm not sure it really leaves them hanging. We've established that Lutyens designed other memorials and it's not unreasonable to say that this subset tended not to attract a lot of controversy and why not.
  • "(the government minister responsible for the Royal Navy)" - I didn't think you needed this here; it's not telling the reader anything essential to the flow, and the link will explain the role if someone wanted to know more.
    • I don't like relying on links; I think the article should stand on its own and if something is important to the reader's understanding, it should be in the article. In this case, I think it's important to make clear that the First Lord of the Admiralty is a politician, not a naval officer (it also distinguishes him from the First Sea Lord, mentioned later).
  • "several of whom were drawn from the literary and artistic contacts of Churchill's private secretary, Edward Marsh." - I wasn't sure how this fact fitted in with the rest of the article; Marsh and his contacts don't reappear anywhere else later on...?
    • I thought it added to the unique, slightly bohemian, nature of the division and was worth including for that.
  • "to design Spalding War Memorial" - "the Spalding War Memorial"?
    • I've never used a definite article when using [Place name] War Memorial as proper noun. I don't think it makes sense.
  • Admiralty Extension building - link on first use.
    • Done.
  • As per summary style, I wouldn't have quoted the entire Rupert Brooke verse here; it is included in the linked article, btw.
    • I think it's worth including for the sake of eight lines. An inscription of poetry by a member of the unit commemorated is almost certainly a unique feature and part of what makes this memorial so notable. It's also quoted verbatim in several of the books and by Historic England in the list entry.
  • "the inaugural commander of the division" - inaugural felt odd here; "first"?
    • Done.
  • " The fund also covered the construction of a memorial to the RND near Beaucourt in France, which takes the form of a truncated stone obelisk." - I'd advise footnoting this; if not, you need to clarify that the structure in the next sentence isn't the Beaucourt memorial.
    • Good point. I've clarified it ad split the paragraph.
  • Are the two Beaucourt locations in France supposed to be the same place? (I don't know, only asking, as it seemed strange to put the monument in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, rather than the Somme)
    • Well spotted. I believe they are. Fixed and clarified.
  • I'd advise footnoting the precise definition of what listed status means (on the basis that it is explained in the link etc., and could easily be summarised as the site "being protected under UK law"), but wouldn't oppose on that basis. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've included this as a result of feedback at previous FACs, which has been to the effect that it's not clear what a listed building is to a non-Brit, and I think it's important to explain that something listed at II* is of significantly more importance than just one of the hundreds of thousands of listed buildings. I think creating a footnotes section just for that would just be clutter.
@Hchc2009: Thanks very much for the review. I always appreciate your eye for detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Hchc2009 is this over the line now? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Carcharoth
  • After: "In the end, the navy opted for three monuments across the south coast of England", is it worth mentioning (or footnoting) that these are Chatham Naval Memorial, Portsmouth Naval Memorial, and Plymouth Naval Memorial, or does this refer to another set of three monuments?
    • I've thought about that, but I can't see a way to link all three, and I think mentioning all three individually is off-topic. (And the articles are poor and heavily duplicate each other; the memorials have identical designs and histories so when I'm done with Lutyens I might merge them all into one.)
      • I'd oppose any such merging. They are distinct objects, in distinct locations, commemorating different people, and there are differences in the history. It is entirely possible to have three different articles without excessive duplication. When linking to the memorials from other articles, it will also be much easier to have three separate articles on the memorials. Sorry to respond here to what you said, but I feel strongly about this. It never crossed my mind that anyone would think of merging those three articles. Carcharoth (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to Brooke's death should focus less on the manner of his death, IMO (many soldiers died of disease), and more on the fact that he died so early on in the war, while on the way to Gallipoli, rather than fighting there. You say that, but don't give the year. I think it is also worth making clear in some way that Brooke's poem dates from very early on in the war (autumn of 1914).
    • I've added the year. I mentioned the cause of death because I didn't want to imply that he was killed in action.
  • "the building of war memorials in the royal parks had previously been controversial" - what does this refer to?
    • After the shrine in Hyde Park, the Royal Parks weren't keen on permanent war memorials in their grounds (this and the Guards Division memorial are notable exceptions). I can't find the source that covers this in more detail but it on'y seemed worth mentioning in passing.
  • Is it worth listing somewhere the "18 units which formed part of the division"? And illustrating with photos of a couple of the carved cap badges? The later bit about 'two more cap badges' confuses me. What is going on there? (I make it 9 cap badges along the front, and 7 cap badges along the left-hand side. There was one on its own on the right-hand side [visible in the interwar photo here], but in more recent photos that badge space is blank. Maybe the original design had 9 on the front, 7 on the left, and 1 on the right and 1 on the back. If there was one on the back, it would have been visible in the original location before the Citadel building was built. So maybe the two additional cap badges are just moving those two badges to where they can be seen? The one on the right certainly looks like one of the ones added later. Are there no more details of this change made in 1931?)
    • I think listing the units is a job for the article on the division. I can only go by the photos and the sources, which say 18. It could be that the missing two are out of sight in the restored position, and as you say that could be what the 1931 additions were about, but I can't find any more details. Ward-Jackson just notes that it happened and that Wilcoxson was recommended by Lutyens; Historic England give a brief biography of Wilcoxson but no details of the work he did.
  • Is it worth making clear that Lord Rothermere had three sons and two of them died in service in WWI? (The one mentioned here was the second son and died first). The reader might be left with the impression that this son was his only son.
    • I've added "second" to avoid giving that impression. The rest, I think, is too tangential to mention here.
  • Obligatory grumble about the difficulty of finding a picture of the memorial in the Greenwich location. At least you found the details of the location (Queen Anne Building - though I can only find "Queen Anne Court" on maps of Greenwich).
    • Agreed. I searched but couldn't find anything. It seems to have fallen into obscurity there—even Pevsner doesn't mention it.
  • It is disconcerting that the poem ended up shoved in a corner barely visible. I can also only see 17 cap badges. Is the 18th around the other side, not visible to the public? I suppose it was a trade-off between returning the memorial to that location or not.
  • What were the additions made by Relph?
    • The sources don't specify.
  • The left-hand side of the memorial includes the inscription 'Collingwood' - what does this refer to?
    • Yes, it says "Benbow" on the other side. They're two of the battalions of the RND. Added. No idea why those two are mentioned but the other six aren't.

Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, reading the article in The Times on the unveiling (R.N.D. War Memorial Unveiled. Monday, Apr 27, 1925; pg. 9; Issue 43946) you get what is the full text of Churchill's speech. The reader might be interested in this. It is worth reading in full, as there are some excellent Churchillian passages in addition to those quoted so far. Maybe the speech is in a published collection of Churchill's speeches? If it is, that could be mentioned. Not going to quote it in full here, as it is a bit long! It is given in full here.
Other details from the report in The Times:
  • The casualty figures are given as "582 officers and 10,925 other ranks ... who fell in the war" - how does this tally with the figure in the Wikipedia article of 10,737 casualties?
  • Apparently the order of service included more of Brooke's poetry, specifically the 'If I should die think only this of me' poem (The Soldier). Quoted in full by The Times. (The 1337 words of the report in fact are mostly the two pieces of poetry by Brooke and Churchill's speech. Those take up about 1000 words, with the rest of the report being around 300 words.)
  • Others in attendance: Mrs Brooke (Mary Ruth Brooke, the mother of Rupert Brooke), Vice-Admiral Sir Roger Keyes, General Sir Ian Hamilton (really should mention that he was there!), Lieutenant-Colonel B. C. Freyberg, VC, Brigidier-General A. M. Asquith (mentioned in the article, but not explicitly stated he was at the unveiling), DSO, Captain H. D. King, MP, DSO, and Captain Oliver Backhouse (later Sir and an Admiral).
  • Guard of honour by the London Division of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.
  • The clergy present were the Reverend Bevill Close (memorial dedication, it is worth mentioning him as he served with the division in the war as one of the divisional chaplains, see e.g. here) and a Roman Catholic service by Father Eric Green (this source states that Father Green 'was a naval reservist and was called up in 1915 to act as a chaplain to the Royal Naval Division in Gallipoli and France.').
  • The report in The Times concludes by reporting that 'God Save the King' was sung.
Pictures from The Times and The Daily Mirror are reproduced in this blog. One of the construction and some of Churchill at the unveiling. I may try and do something with photos, but hopefully some of the snippets of information here can be worked into the article. Carcharoth (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these. I've added some of the details of the unveiling. Quinlan gives Churchill's speech in full but it's lengthy an not entirely focused on the RND and the memorial; even the excerpts I've used take up most of a paragraph. I'd also seen the blog but dismissed it as being a blog; if you can do anything with the photos, please feel free and I'll see if I can incorporate some of them into the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth and HJ Mitchell: G'day all, where are we at with these comments? I think they may have been addressed, but am not certain. As it has been nearly a month since this ACR received a comment, it is probably time to consider listing it for closing. But before I list it, I just want to confirm if there are any outstanding comments or concerns standing in the way of promotion? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me. Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I will list it for closure now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

edit

Not much left for me to do.

  • Images appropriately licensed
  • Sources look fine
  • I'm far more used to seeing citations above the bibliography
  • MOS:APPENDIX states that appendices like citations and bibliography should each use a lvl 2 header, not with lvl 3 headers as you have it here. Lvl 3 headers should be reserved for differentiating between books and primary sources, etc.
  • No DABs, external links OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66, could you confirm your support or otherwise. Please ping. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:05, 22 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Royal_Naval_Division_War_Memorial&oldid=827132420"