Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Civil Service Rifles War Memorial/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2018 [1].

Civil Service Rifles War Memorial

[edit]
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I bring you—just for a change! ;)—a war memorial. This one's a relatively obscure one given its location in the very centre of London. It's dedicated to members of the Civil Service Rifles, a regiment made up of British civil servants, who died in the First World War. It's not a huge article because everything seems to have proceeded reasonably smoothly (barring a change of architect early on), which doesn't leave any great campaign or controversy to write about. It's had a very helpful A-Class review at MilHist and I think it's up to scratch, but I'll be very glad of any feedback. Here's to my last FAC of 2017 and hopefully my first FA of 2018! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Dank

[edit]

Support Comments from Usernameunique

[edit]

Lead

  • "was placed inside it." I don't think you need the "it."
    • Fair enough; gone.
  • "part of a national collection". What exactly is a "national collection"?
    • As far as I can tell, it's a term Historic England have made up for a group of closely related listed buildings (eg, Wren's churches).

Background

  • "the war had a profound effect on him". This seems a bit airy. Why? In what way(s)?
    • He travelled to the battlefields during the war and was heavily involved in getting the Imperial War Graves Commission off the ground; from letters he wrote it's clear that he was very deeply distressed by what he saw and by the scale of casualties, to the point that he spent the next several years making war memorials either pro bono or for a very modest fee as well as consulting for the IWGC and designing several of its monuments and hundreds of its cemeteries. But that's mostly out of scope for this article. When I've finished the set, I'm going to write something like "Edwin Lutyens and war memorials" and link it from all the individual memorials so that there's a proper answer to questions like those.
      • I see your point about scope, although I find it quite interesting that the architect actually visited battlefields of the war he commemorated. I don't think that that fact, worded along the lines of "clients, but travels to the battlefields during the war for [one- to three-word reason for travels] had greatly affected him, and", would be too tangential.
  • "for the Cenotaph on Whitehall". Do you need two separate links? What about "for the Cenotaph on Whitehall"?
    • I think so, because not everybody realises that Whitehall is the name of the street (this being London, they couldn't just call it "Whitehall Street").
  • "which became Britain's national war memorial". Minor point, but I think of "became" as implying growth, whereas an object either is or is not Britain's national war memorial, and does not grow into either. Having some déjà vu here (your point about "rose" in the Nigel Williams review).
    • It wasn't built as a national memorial per se. It became that later.
  • "These were among the least controversial". Is "controversial" the right word? It seems to contrast a bit with what you just described as his popularity. Maybe something about encountering less friction.
  • "properly named the ... Civil Service Rifles)". This is confusing, can you put quotation marks around the full name?
    • Done.
  • "at their annual camp". Not sure what an "annual camp" is. A time to roast marshmallows and tell scary stores over a campfire?
    • Essentially, but in army uniforms. I've linked it to military camp but even that's not much use.
  • "in August 1914. The battalion was mobilised on 4 August 1914". How about "on 4 August 1914. The battalion was mobilised that day"?
    • Good point. Rewritten.
  • "having lost 1,240 officers and men killed". So the officers weren't men? Also, "killed" is redundant.
    • Not in a military sense, no; the "men" are the private soldiers and NCOs (some memorials explicitly say "officers, NCOs and men", others just say "officers and men". Agreed on "killed".

Commissioning

  • "After the war, the demobilised soldiers formed an Old Comrades Association and discussion". Suggest moving the comma to after "Association".
    • I've put another comma in there but I think we need the one after "war"
  • "The association formed ... regimental history." I'd split this in two.
    • Done.
  • "established a fund to raise £750". Isn't a "fund" something with money in it, not an empty piggy bank?
    • I think the use is legitimate, but changed to "appeal" nonetheless.
  • "The committee". Should "committee" be capitalized?
    • "Committee" itself isn't a proper noun so I don't capitalise it (cf. "army"), which is also my reading of the MoS; some people do, but I suppose it's a stylistic choice.
  • "at the north end of the quadrangle at Somerset House". You could avoid the at/at by saying "the Somerset House quadrangle".
    • I think that's a bit chatty, which is worse than a minor prose flaw, but I've changed one of the "at"s to an "in".
  • "At some time". Probably don't need the "At".
    • Done.
  • "the committee replaced Baker with Sir Edwin Lutyens". Why? It seems like the Baker design was well on its way, why the 180?
    • We don't know. All we have is a letter from Baker to the Office of Works, and then later another letter from Lutyens to the Office of Works. Had the site not been a government building (thus requiring the consent of the office), all record of Baker's involvement might have been lost.
  • "To this the Office of Works objected, concerned about its effect ... in the quadrangle." Another run-on. Also, I think "its" technically refers to the Office, not the monument.
    • Fixed.

Design

  • "with classical mouldings in Portland stone approximately 4.9 metres (16 feet) tall." The mouldings are 16 feet tall?
    • Fixed.
  • "the dates of the First World War." Do you mean the start and end dates?
    • Yes, done.
  • "The flags were originally copper but were later replaced with carved stone." Any idea when?
    • Sadly not. Even Historic England don't seem to have a date.
  • "Lutyens intended his design to be sympathetic". Are you sure about "sympathetic"? What about something else like "harmonious"?
    • I can live with that.
  • "The dedication DDDDDD on the front (north) face, while the south face reads". How about "On the front (north) face is inscribed the dedication DDDDDD, while the south face reads"?
    • And that.
  • "The dates of the war". See above. This is more problematic after looking at the next sentence; I read "dates" as meaning dmy dates, not years.
  • "The dates of the war (in Roman numerals) are inscribed on the plinth". How about "The dates of the war are inscribed on the plinth in Roman numerals"?
    • I've rewritten and clarified this.
      • Still recommend scrapping the parentheses in favor "are inscribed below the urn in Roman numerals," but up to you.

History

  • The/The/The/The starts off the first four sentences.
    • Good point. Fixed.
  • "By that time ... old regiment." Another run-on.
    • Also fixed.
  • "and amalgamated". Should be "and had amalgamated".
    • I'm not sure about that; certainly I'd have thought a regiment "is amalgamated" (by a higher authority), not that it amalgamates itself. Either way, the full sentence reads had been reduced in size to two companies and amalgamated so I think it's fine.
  • The whole first paragraph feels a bit choppy and unstructured.
    • I've reworked it a bit and split it.
  • "and the government leased parts". What about "was leasing"?
    • Fine.
  • "During the process". What process?
    • Clarified.
  • "Walter Humphrys". When did he die?
    • Not in the sources, and it would feel a little tangential to include it unless it had some effect on the memorial.

History pt. 2

  • "By the time of the ceremony, the Civil Service Rifles had been reduced in size to two companies and amalgamated with the Queen's Westminster Rifles to form the 16th Battalion, the London Regiment (Queen's Westminster and Civil Service Rifles) during post-war reorganisations, though veterans were determined to maintain the traditions of the old regiment." Suggest "By the time of the ceremony, post-war reorganisations had reduced the Civil Service Rifles in size to two companies and amalgamated it with the Queen's Westminster Rifles to form the 16th Battalion, the London Regiment (Queen's Westminster and Civil Service Rifles), though veterans were determined to maintain the traditions of the old regiment."
    • Works for me.
  • "Retired members continued". Perhaps "Surviving" instead of retired. It's unclear whether you mean retired from the war, or retired from their post-war vocations.
    • Good point.
  • "were aged in their nineties". Do you need "aged"?
    • I thought it seemed too informal without it, but you're at least the second person to raise it, so perhaps not.
  • "was leasing parts". Come to think of it, perhaps "was leasing out parts" would be best.
    • I don't think this is necessary.
  • "When the requisite legislation". What legislation? Necessary for what? You could get away with just saying "When the subject arose in
    • That's how I was thinking of doing it. Should have gone with that first time.
  • "reached the House of Lords, a former member of the regiment". The House of Lords used to be part of the regiment?
    • Reworded.
  • "and subsequent restructuring". Should this instead be "and a subsequent restructuring" or "and the subsequent restructuring"?
    • I think it's clear from the context (resulting from further amalgamations following...) that it means restructuring subsequent to WWII.

Overall Looks pretty good. Most of the above are very minor points and suggestions. The main things are three run-on sentences, and the first paragraph under "History" that feels disjointed. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking a look, and for your detailed comments! Please have a look at my responses and let me know if there's anything you feel needs more attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, HJ Mitchell. I've responded above to two points inline, and created "History pt. 2" to address the reworded section; as you've undoubtedly seen, I've also made a few edits to the article. Of all of that, the only thing that should be seen as more than a mere suggestion is the part about "requisite legislation". --Usernameunique (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've addressed everything now, except the bit about Lutyens. It's an oversimplification to suggest that it was one visit to France that had such an effect on him, and it's hard to go into any great detail while staying on-topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, you've got my support. Good point about "enlisted," I didn't know that was a US term. I suppose you could say "other men" instead if you want. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

[edit]

I could see little that Usernameunique hasn't already covered, and those points seem readily actionable, so I'm happy to support. Just three extra points

SupportComments from Tim riley

[edit]

This is a lovely article, and I shall be supporting it, but first a quibble or two.

  • Background
    • "The Civil Service was headquartered in Somerset House" – I don't think that will do. S.H. was an important government building, but insofar as the Civil Service had a headquarters in 1924 it was at HM Treasury in Whitehall, or possibly at the newish Cabinet Office next door to it. You could reasonably describe S.H. as one of the most important government offices or something like that.
  • Commissioning
    • "after Lutyens … claimed that…" – I'd be cautious about "claimed". It carries overtones of unjustified assertion. If the sources support Lutyens's assertion, then perhaps "discovered" or "showed"; if not, then perhaps a neutral word such as "contended" or "argued".
  • Design
    • "…the Union Flag…" – linked here but not in the lead.
  • History
    • "…the Treasury authorised…" – I might either link this to HM Treasury or expand the name to something like "the British Treasury". Just a thought, and I won't press the point if you demur.

Those are my few – very minor – points. Nothing to cause alarm and despondency, and I look forward to supporting in the next day or so. May I say, that as someone who has lived in London for most of the last 50 years I am touched to find an article on a memorial I didn't even know about? I shall go and see it in January. Tim riley talk 17:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Tim. I'm glad you enjoyed the article and equally glad that it's inspired you to go and see the memorial. If you're interested, the article is part of a series; I have a handful more that I'll be bringing through FAC eventually (including two memorials within half a mile of this one). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My small quibbles having been attended to I am very happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria, and I am glad to have read it. Tim riley talk 17:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Ref 8: In what is becoming my signature quibble on MilHist articles (see candidate immediately below), may I point out that "Imperial War Museums" is a plural entity? Otherwise, sources are in excellent order and of appropriate quality and reliability. 19:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I was hoping you'd get round to this - my grandfather's regiment in the war (although he was transferred to the 6th Westminster part way through 1918), and one I've visited a couple of times. An excellent article that fully meets the FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the support, and wonderful to hear about the family connection. If I'd known, I'd have put it higher up the list. It seems it was quite common for Civil Service Riflemen to be commissioned out or transferred; I suppose the skills involved in administering a country were useful in administering an army. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - have read through the article and have nothing to add to the above that is actionable. Do the sources indicate what form Baker's proposed memorial took (other than its proposed location)? It is a great pity that it seems so hard to find an image anywhere that shows the memorial in its original location (might have to dig around in the Illustrated London News again). The internet is now awash with pictures of the very photogenic dancing fountains and (seasonal) ice rink that is where the memorial used to be. Maybe include a picture of the original location as it now looks to give readers an idea of its former location? There must be a picture out there somewhere (even if not freely available)! (Is there anything in any of the printed sources?) FWIW, the Lords debate can be read in all its excruciating details starting here (and then search around that). That Somerset House bill got many readings. An, um, 'interesting' insight into how such things are debated in the Lords. One final thought: were any of the casualties notable? Might be worth mentioning that, though if there is no record of the names on the list (other than the actual scroll itself inside the memorial), it might be difficult. Carcharoth (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couple of snippets from the reports in The Times:
      • Thursday, Jan 17, 1924; pg. 9; Issue 43551: this report states that there were plans to produce a souvenir booklet "containing a photograph of the memorial, the order of ceremony for unveiling, and a list of killed whose names have been recorded on a parchment scroll placed within the monument". Might be worth seeing if any archives or museums have copies of this souvenir booklet (the book Civil Service Rifles in the Great War: 'All Bloody Gentlemen' cites this souvenir booklet as a source). Certainly there will likely be a roll of honour maintained/published somewhere in connection with the memorial for people to view or read later. There appear to be three copies of this booklet held by the Imperial War Museum: [2], [3], [4].
      • The full unveiling report in The Times has extra details that may or may not be worth including (you can understand why some secondary sources don't report everything in full detail, but on the other hand, not all memorial unveilings were reported in great detail - so having extra bits like this may be a bonus): Monday, Jan 28, 1924; pg. 7; Issue 43560:
        • The Prince of Wales wore the service dress of a Colonel of the Welsh Guards
        • Also present were E. G. H. Cox, William Thwaites, Robert McCalmont, Alexander MacWhirter Renny, Hugh Valdave Warrender, William Henry Eric Segrave.
        • Hymns sung: O Valiant Hearts and For All the Saints.
        • Along similar lines, do you want to include the playing of the Last Post and Reveille at the unveiling ceremony (the national anthem was also sung, possibly this was only because the Prince of Wales was there)?
        • It seems the correct spelling of "W. H. Kirby" is actually "W. T. Kirkby" (possibly William T. Kirkby, not sure). The Times reports 'Major W. T. Kirkby' as the chairman of the memorial committee. The Wikipedia article states 'Major W. H. Kirby' (confusingly, someone exists of that name). I think it is W. T. Kirkby.
        • The article in The Times concludes in small print with a list of others present (we have articles on the aristocrats, less so on the senior civil servants): Lord Novar, Lord Hampden, Lord Bury, C. B. Thomson, Sir Herbert and Lady Creedy, Sir Malcolm and Lady Ramsay, Sir Amherst and Lady Selby-Bigge (of the Selby-Bigge baronets), Sir Horace and Lady Hamilton, Sir Sydney and Lady Chapman (possibly Sydney Chapman (economist)), Sir Richard and Lady Hopkins (possibly Richard Hopkins (civil servant)), Lieutenant-Colonel R. C. (Rowland Charles) Feilding, and Lieutenant-Colonel C. (Cyril) de Putron.
      • As The Times reports in excruciating detail the movements of the royal family and those with them ('attending them'), there is a brief snippet in the Court Circular the day following the unveiling (Monday, Jan 28, 1924; pg. 13; Issue 43560) to say that Piers Legh was there as well. FWIW.

Lots of detail there. Hope some of it helps. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Carcharoth: Thanks very much for the support and for the extra details. I think a few of those are a bit too far from the main topic to include here, but some I've incorporated into the article. Can I have the author and title for the 28 January Times article? I'm not aware of any of the casualties being notable (there's no mention of any VC recipients, for example). There's a photo at the back of Skelton's Lutyens and the Great War of it in the quadrangle, complete with civil servants' cars parked around it, but I haven't seen any others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is clear that senior civil servants were there, but whether it is because they were senior civil servants or because they served in the unit in the war (or both) is unfortunately not clear. The title of the article in The Times is 'Civil Service Rifles War Memorial'. No author. I didn't give all the details. The choir of St Clement Danes was there, with the rector William Pennington-Bickford, and the regimental band. The picture of the unveiling ceremony in the ILN gives an idea of the scale of the ceremony. Carcharoth (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again. I would expect that very senior civil servants probably didn't fight in the regiment, at least not in WWI; they're likely to have been too old and too important in their day jobs, but that's just speculation. I've added a little on the music. Is the ILN photo usable? It's too late for PD-1923 but could be expired. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Civil_Service_Rifles_War_Memorial/archive1&oldid=1138457651"