Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Civil Service Rifles 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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Civil Service Rifles War Memorial edit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Civil Service Rifles War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Tucked away in a quiet corner on London's Victoria Embankment, we have the Civil Service Rifles War Memorial, a relatively modest tribute to a small and unique regiment from the First World War. The main historical interest here is not the architect (as with many of my previous nominations) but the record of a now largely forgotten regiment. It's not a long article because a relatively obscure regiment and a lack of any great controversy don't leave a great deal to write about, but I feel it's comprehensiveness. As ever, all feedback is very much appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments From looking at my photos of London in 2015 it turns out that I actually saw this memorial (while visiting the excellent art gallery at Somerset House) - I had no idea it was by Lutyens. I've just uploaded one of my photos to Commons, though the memorial is already well illustrated - my attempt at a front view photo turned out less well than yours but an extra three quarter view might be helpful. Preliminary rambling aside, here are my comments:

  • The article discusses the Civil Service Rifles, but not the Cadet Battalion which the memorial's inscription makes specific reference to - can the Cadet Battalion's role be described? (was this the regiment's depot?)
    • I have no idea to be honest. I can't find any description of the cadet battalion, even in the ~240-page book dedicated to the CSR.
  • "Both battalions were disbanded after the war, having lost 1,240 officers and men killed" - this might be a bit pedantic, but can the casualty figure given on the memorial be cross-checked against other references? It's not unusual for the figures given on memorials to differ from those later calculated by historians. It might also be helpful to note how many men served in the regiment to provide context for the figure, if this is available.
    • Knight has an appendix covering attrition rates, including casualties, which I've now cited. It's a tricky issue, though, because of the regiment's recruiting base, many of its men were promptly commissioned and transferred elsewhere. I've also added the estimate of the total men who served in the CSR overseas, also from Knight.
  • "it was funded by donations, the regiment's funds, and also from the sales of a regimental history" - this was mentioned in an earlier section
    • Removed.
  • "By the time of the unveiling, the Civil Service Rifles had been reduced in size to two companies and amalgamated into the Queen's Westminster Rifles" - this is also mentioned in the previous para
    • I've combined the two paragraphs.
  • "In the early 1980s, much of the Civil Service was based elsewhere" - seems an under-statement given the size of the Civil Service: I imagine that it was also the case in 1914 (though as an aside, Roger Knight's excellent book Britain Against Napoleon: The Organisation of Victory states that virtually the entire British Civil Service was located in Somerset House during the Napoleonic Wars). Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was obviously a much larger organisation by 1914, but much of it was sill based at Somerset House, and many of the offices based there were relocated from the 1980s onwards. Thanks very much for looking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to this reference, the UK civil service had 270,000 staff by 1914, so only a small minority would have been located at Somerset House. Based on my limited knowledge of the building(s?) history, I'd suggest changing this to something like "By the early 1980s, few civil servants remained in Somerset House". Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: There is a little more on this memorial in Philip Ward-Jackson's Public Sculpture of Historic Westminster (further details in this bibliography) – for instance, it was originally to have been designed by Herbert Baker and the Office of Works initially objected to its being situated in the centre of the quadrangle of Somerset House. If it's OK with you I could add incorporate all the important points in Ward-Jackson to the article next week. Ham II (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ham II: That's interesting. I struggled with sources for this article—it's barely mentioned in most of the books I have on war memorials, architecture, and Lutyens—so anything you've got would be appreciated. I've ordered a copy of that book because I have two other Lutyens memorials to do in Westminster but if you get chance to make the additions before my copy arrives please feel free. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to see that the book has arrived and you've beaten me to incorporating it into the article. Sorry for the extreme pedantry of what follows; this is another exemplary article from you. I can't wait to see what you do with the Cenotaph.
  • In the lead, I don't think the links are necessary; and regimental colour isn't a proper noun, so I've dropped the caps
  • Both battalions were disbanded shortly after the war, the regiment amalgamated with the Queen's Westminster Rifles, but former members established an Old Comrades Association... Change the first comma to a semicolon?
  • I was using the bit between the commas as a subordinate clause, but I suppose it could look like a comma splice, so done.
  • It takes the form of a single classical column: "Classical column" is slightly misleading; perhaps "rectangular column with classical mouldings"?
  • Done.
You seem to have done this in the "Design" section rather than in the lede. Ham II (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now done there as well! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The memorial was designated a grade II listed building: The uppercased "Grade II" is more usual, but are you following MOS:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalisation") here? Has this come up in one of your previous nominations?
  • I've always struggled to see how "grade" could be a proper noun (especially since "Listed Building" isn't).
  • Following the end of the war in 1918: One of the memorial's inscriptions gives the final year of World War I as 1919 – although this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. (I'd love to know why so many war memorials do this.) Possibly find a way of phrasing it that avoids using the date 1918?
  • Easy enough to just remove those two words. I did read something about the reason so many memorials refer to 1919. I think the answer is essentially that the British Army was still busy with 'mopping up' operations around the empire, which modern historians don't consider to be part of the world war.
I believe it is because although there was an armistice on 11 November 1918 that ended hostilities, the war itself was not officially ended until the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. FactotEm (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you mention the MCM/ XIV and MCM/ XIX inscriptions? Ham II (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • the committee replaced Baker with Sir Edwin Lutyens → Lutyens has been mentioned often enough by this point that he can be referred to by his surname alone.
  • He's only mentioned in the background section a few paragraphs above; I think it bears repeating.
  • The Suffragan Bishop of Willesden William Perrin also attended. Link "Suffragan" to suffragan bishop, put commas before and after "William Perrin", and change "also attended" to "was also present" to avoid the repetition of "attended" in the next sentence?
  • Commas and wording done. I don't think we need the link; it's not particularly relevant and it would be three consecutive links (WP:SEAOFBLUE).
  • Done and done.
  • the attendees were aged in their nineties. "Aged" is unnecessary here, I think.
  • I don't know. "in their nineties" just seemed a bit informal, but I'm not attached to it.
  • Lord Houghton of Sowerby, a former member of the regiment and by then a member of the House of Lords, queried the government's plans → Lord Houghton of Sowerby, a former member of the regiment, raised a question in the House of Lords about the government's plans? No need to say that someone was by now in the House of Lords when that's already clear from his title.
  • I don't know if it's obvious to a non-Brit, but done.
  • In the bibliography, the authors of the Westminster volume of The Buildings of England should be in alphabetical order and the citations should refer to "Bradley & Pevsner" rather than "Pevsner". Although I unfortunately don't have the relevant book on me to check, I'm pretty sure that Pevsner himself insisted on this convention when he was writing The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture with the more junior art historians John Fleming and Hugh Honour.
  • Done.
  • Definitely. A photo of the quadrangle being used as a parade ground is useful background. Thank you very much for the compliment and for the review. No need to apologise for pedantry! Besides, I'd rather iron out the creases before it goes to FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport: Just a few nitpicky observations on prose...

  • Lede: I read "stone flags", then looked at the picture and thought that they're obviously not stone. Maybe it should read "painted stone flags"?
    • Done.
  • Background, 1st para, Lutyens established his reputation designing country houses for wealthy clients but the war had a profound effect on him.... Needs a comma after "clients"?
    • I'm sure I was taught not to put a comma before a "but"; not something I'd go to the wall over but I don't think it's necessary.
  • ...for the Cenotaph on Whitehall.... "at" Whiteall?
    • Whitehall is a street, so "on" seems more appropriate.
  • 3rd para, ...came under the command of the 140th (4th London) Brigade, under the 47th (London) Division. "under...under"?
    • Fixed.
  • Is it worth linking Salonika and Palestine?
    • Done.
  • History, 2nd para, Queen's Westminster Rifles is a redirect.
    • I'm aware, but I don't think it's immediately clear to the uninitiated that "Queen's Westminsters" refers to an army unit.
  • 3rd para, ...The Royal Green Jackets (the regiment resulting.... There's no explicit link between the Civil Service Rifles and the Royal Green Jackets. Maybe something along the lines of "...the successor regiment...", or anything to make clear that there is some lineage between the two?
    • I thought the parenthetical note was doing that, but I can add the word "successor" if that makes it clearer.
  • More for my own benefit really, but you picked up on my quote of the Fifth Gloucester Gazette as requiring a ref, and it looks to me that you put some things in quotes that are not ref'ed: in the 1st para of the Background section about "leading English architect of his generation" and in the final para of the article relating to listed buildings. Should they be ref'ed?
    • Probably. End of the sentence is probably sufficient, but certainly the reference was too far away for the "leading architect" quote.

I see no other issues. Nice article. FactotEm (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Harry, not a lot stood out to me. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are a few potentially overlinked terms: Battle of Loos, Battle of the Somme, Battle f Passchendaele, and Historic England
    Fixed.
  • suggest linking "plinth"
    Done.
  • "Major Kirby": can probably just be "Kirby" at this point per WP:SURNAME
    I put that in deliberately because there's a bit of a gap since he was last mentioned and it might help remind the reader who he is
  • "File:Inspection of the Civil Service Volunteers at Somerset House by the Prince of Wales.jpg": not sure about the licence on this one. Would {{PD-1923}} be a better licence?
    Good point. I should have checked this before I added it to the article. Fixed. Thanks very much, Rupert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Done. All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 24 December 2017 (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/Civil_Service_Rifles_War_Memorial&oldid=816928799"