Talk:Duffield Memorial/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 11:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Pleased to pick this up. It will likely be the weekend before I finish. KJP1 (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

REVIEW

General

• I think a few more bluelinks might help the reader. I know we want to avoid a sea of blue, but there are a number of terms which I think could be linked. The main ones for me, all in the Lead/Background sections, are: "The Duffield Memorial is a gravesite monument"; "decorated in relief with leaflike motifs"; "riveted sections of copper alloy sheet metal" - you could do copper alloy as well, in a number of ways; "clerk to the Justices at Chelmsford"; "registrar of the Chelmsford County Court - although registrar isn't a great link - and Bankruptcy Court"; "governor of the King Edward VI School"; and "the Chelmsford and Blackwater Navigation Company".

• Good idea, done. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "the Church of St Mary in Great Baddow, England" - perhaps, "the Church of St Mary in Great Baddow, Essex, England", for the small number of our readers unfamiliar with the location of Great Baddow?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• "in 2022 it was designated a Grade II Listed Building" - fine and accurate as is, although should Listed Building be capitalised? Personally I tend to tweak the link for those artefacts that aren't actually buildings, to something like, "in 2022 it was designated a Grade II listed structure".

• Dropped the caps. I agree "building" is an odd word, but given that it's the official term, I'm inclined to leave it. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• "The list entry terms the memorial both "an unusual example of churchyard memorial design", and "an unusual example of Art Nouveau design" - perhaps, to avoid the repetition, something like, "The list entry terms the memorial "an unusual example" of both "churchyard memorial" and "Art Nouveau design..."? Or even drop the "unusual example" quote altogether by replacing it with something like, 'a rare type/exemplar/specimen' or some such.

• Reworded along the first lines. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Background: The Duffields

• "governor of the King Edward VI School" - on the subjects of bluelinks, is the King Edward VI School one right? This, King Edward VI Grammar School, Chelmsford, would seem more probable, but the source doesn't specify.

• Good catch, fixed. This article confirms it. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• "His private positions included as director and chairman of entities including the Reliance Life Assurance Company,..." - this doesn't quite flow. Perhaps something like, "His private positions included roles as director and chairman of a range of businesses such as the Reliance Life Assurance Company, ..."?

• Much better, done. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Another son, Frederick Albert Duffield, died in 1962 at the age of three months" [Note 2] - surely 1862?

• Whoops. Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Marianne Duffield died on 22 June 1910" - she's Marianna elsewhere, but the sources suggest that Marianne is right.

• Fixed. I don't see "Marianna" in any sources (and, perhaps dispositively, she's "Marianne" on the memorial), and assume that was just a typo. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Herbert Maryon

• The only questions that are begged in this section are; "who commissioned the memorial and who commissioned Maryon"? Given it went up only two months after William Duffield's death, he surely commissioned it? How did he know Maryon, and his work? Had Maryon done anything else in Essex? Lutyens' private memorials, e.g. Jekyll Memorial, Busbridge, were almost invariably for family friends. It may well be that none of the sources say, but the how/who/why here always interests me. If there is anything, it could be covered here, or perhaps better still in the History section. But perhaps there isn't?

• Those are good questions, but unfortunately there's little to be found which answers them. The only sources tying Maryon to the memorial are the two identical articles (1; 2) about the erection of the memorial. It's difficult to see what the link is. Maryon did do another memorial in Essex (Memorial to Henry Ayrton Chaplin, see Works of Herbert Maryon), although the date is unclear (after 1905, however, when Chaplin died). And while Maryon executed a number of memorials over his career, the Duffield Memorial is the first one that we can date; the next was in 1920. So, as you suggested, the link is more likely to be personal (someone knew Maryon) than to have been inspired out of the commissioner's knowledge of Maryon's body of work. But until we can find more sources, it seems we're left to speculate. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Description

• "a medallion, now removed, was once riveted to the centre" - my only query here relates to the medallion's removal. Is this a euphemism for "stolen"? Perhaps the sources don't say.

• It's the same word used in the Historic England list entry; the absence is visible in the photos, so they likely were just interpreting the visual evidence. I suppose it's also possible that sometime over the last 100+ years it fell off. It would be nice to find a photo from when the medallion was still present, to see both what it looked like, and whether it was something likely to catch an eye. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

History

• The issue here is the second paragraph, which I think needs a bit of re-working. As I read the HE source, the monument is listed on Historical, Group and Architectural, rather than Archaeological grounds. I think your historical period is showing! Secondly, the third and fourth sentences both reference the "historic interest", whereas I think the fourth should reference the "architectural interest". All easily resolved, I think, by replacing "archaeological" with "architectural" in the second sentence, and "Historically" with "Architecturally" in the fourth.

• Yes, a revealing error! Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Notes

• Note 2 - see comment re. date in The Duffields section.

References

• References 28 and 29 - aren't these the same? If yes, could they be combined?

• No idea what I was thinking there. Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Good usage of a limited range of sources. I looked in the revised Essex Pevsner, but unfortunately Bettley doesn't cover it. I wonder if the Seales would survive a "parochial" RS challenge at FAC, but I think it's fine for GA.

• Thanks for taking a look at Pevsner. Sealed is used only because it's one of the two sources given in the list entry; perhaps it would be better in a "Further reading" section? --Usernameunique (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Images

• The absence of an image is a pity. But I can't find any, either in Commons or on Geograph. The Find a Grave one is nice, but unusable.

• Agreed. There's a discussion on the talk page about this; I'm hopeful that we'll be able to get some photos next month. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Overall

• Usernameunique - that's it from me in terms of comments/suggestions. I'll fill out the formal Template later, but over to you to consider the comments. I think it's a fine article on an interesting memorial. As we both know only too well, it can be hard to source RS for minor buildings/structures, but I think you've done a grand job with what's available. It's a pity there's no image, but them's the breaks. KJP1 (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the careful and thoughtful review, KJP1. I believe I've answered everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

TEMPLATE

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   On Hold for consideration of the above comments.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   On Hold for consideration of combining 28/29.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   [1] - Earwig and online checks are fine. Some of the descriptive wording echoes the HE listing, but this is inevitable if quotes are used.

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   The absence of an image is regrettable, but there doesn't appear to be a suitable one to use, and the criteria covers this through "where possible".

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Not applicable.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)