Talk:Mortimer War Memorial

Photos

We're lucky to have a few photos of the memorial, although it would be really helpful to have some more—particularly photos of each side, and details such as the plaques/inscriptions and allegorical figures. Is there any chance that someone who lives nearby might be able to pop over and help out? Pinging users listed in Category:Wikipedians in Berkshire who have edited in the last year: AlligatorSky, BerkshireSam, BrayLockBoy, Callagar, Clyde1998, Cxp3, Dahliarose, Mortice, Mariegriffiths, John of Reading, J11csd, Gsyhiap, Feline Hymnic, R520, Sgfoote, Tim Landy, Tuzapicabit, Verica Atrebatum. Thanks in advance for any help. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I should be able to grab some photos on Tuesday. I'll let you know when I've taken some. R520^{Talk | Email} 18:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks R520! If possible, could you please take photos of each side; close-ups of each plaque; and close-ups of each allegorical figure? And a few zoomed-out photos showing the memorial in context would also help. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Photos were taken on Tuesday, and I've just finished uploading them. They're in the Mortimer War Memorial category. All CC0. Let me know if you need any more photos taken around Burghfield/Mortimer area, I'll do my best to help.

They're also the first photo's I've uploaded so any hints/tips would be appreciated. Thanks! R520^{Talk | Email} 17:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

These photos are great! Thanks so much, R520. These are better than any of the photos available online (which aren't freely licensed in any event), and it's particularly interesting to see the winged figures, of which there aren't any good photos online at all. Looking forward to adding them to the article. I can't think of any other objects near there for which photos would be helpful, but I'll let you know if that changes. Thanks again, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Usernameunique I have to admit that I had never noticed the figures, despite having attended remembrance parades for many years! Thanks for working on this article, you've put a lot of work in! DYK nomination well deserved R520^{Talk | Email} 21:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

R520, you're not the only one; I didn't notice them until writing the "Description" section, and did a double take when one of the sources mentioned them. You don't happen to have taken any photos of parades by the memorial, do you? --Usernameunique (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Mortimer war memorial

• ... that while the Mortimer War Memorial (pictured) was erected three years after the end of the First World War, a plaque honouring those who died in the Second was not added until 1999?

• Source: Reading Evening Post, 17 November 1999: "A 10-YEAR battle to commemorate villagers who died in the Second World War was celebrated on Sunday. A new plaque was unveiled at Mortimer war memorial to list 10 names which had not originally been included."

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hands off Greenland protests; Template:Did you know nominations/Bum (San Diego dog)

5x expanded by Usernameunique (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 88 past nominations.

Usernameunique (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC).

• I will review this DYK. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Expanded 5x on March 4. See below for my ref review. The hook doesn't thrill me, but it's okay, so passing this part. Needs QPQs. Address these concerns, and I will pass. 18:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Refs:

• The Berkshire source in your bibliography has a harv warning; easily fixed, so please do so.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Currently, you overuse refs. For example, in the first paragraph of the Commissioning section, you place ref5 after each sentence. That's unnecessary; all you need is to support your claims individually. So instead of placing the ref both after the words "war" and "cross", you should put it at the end of "cross", since the it supports both sentences. You still need the other refs after each quote, though. This is something you do throughout the article, so please fix and I will pass you on this part.

• This "is a matter of editorial judgment", and is my consistent practice in every article I work on. Even if a citation per sentence is not a requirement, "it is typical for editors to voluntarily exceed [the] minimum standards". Among other benefits, doing so makes crystal clear what sources supports what fact, "helps Wikipedia maintain text–source integrity ... [and] allows other people to quickly determine whether the material is verifiable". --Usernameunique (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Huh, okay. My practice is to not do that. Personally, I think it looks ugly and makes the prose choppy. But good enough, you've convinced me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Did a spot check; refs look good, without close paraphrasing or plagiarism.
• No copyvios by Eagwig.

Thanks very much, Figureskatingfan. Comments above. As for the QPQs, they're listed above (Hands off Greenland protests and Bum (San Diego dog)). --Usernameunique (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome, Usernameunique. Changed to checks above. We're good to go! Best regards moving forward. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Usernameunique:, nine of the references in the article are to the wordpress domain. It's usually blogs/self-published sources hosted on wordpress. Can you advise how these sources are reliable? TarnishedPath^talk 06:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I've accessed these sources now (I wasn't able to before as my workplace blocks wordpress) and it appears all of them purport to reproduce articles from the Stratfield Mortimer parish magazine. Wordpress needs to be removed and the parish magazine via Royal Berkshire Archives needs to be referenced. TarnishedPath^talk 09:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, TarnishedPath. I've added a footnote explaining where the posts come from. We can't fully divest ourselves from the Wordpress links; as discussed during the GA review, the actual magazines will be difficult to source (basically, it will require either paying for the archives to scan them, or trekking out there), and even assuming I'm eventually able to do that, the Wordpress links will still be valuable in enabling a reader to view the sources. But it's different from a normal blog post in that it's acting as the host, not the origin, of the information. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Usernameunique:, have you previously read/accessed the actual magazines? How do you know that the wordpress sources are accurate reproductions? TarnishedPath^talk 21:52, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, as I believe my above comment makes clear, I have not seen the actual magazines myself, because doing so will require either paying for the archives to scan them, or trekking out there. Even if WordPress is the medium, however, this is still the website of the Royal Berkshire Archives. Note that per WP:RSPWORDPRESS, WordPress.com ... is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Here, we're somewhere in the middle of the two exceptions, in that the Royal Berkshire Archives is a reliable source, and it is simply (and uncontroversially) transcribing the magazines. It's also worth noting that the article passed GA with these sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: thankyou for discussing this in the WT:DYK discussion. My concerns are resolved and I'll try and promote this sometime later on. TarnishedPath^talk 02:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mortimer War Memorial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 04:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 09:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Pleased to pick this one up. Will likely comment in batches. Feel free to respond as I go, at at the end when I'll ping you. KJP1 (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments

Infobox

Looks fine.

Lead

• "commemorates the lives of soldiers from Stratfield Mortimer" - do any of the sources confirm that the dead were all soldiers, as opposed to sailors or airmen? I ask because later you reference the front plaque as depicting "a soldier and a sailor". If sources don't confirm it, I wonder if "servicemen" would be better?

• Good point, changed to "servicemen" as you suggest. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• "Subsequent plaques were added to recognise twelve who were killed" - Per MOS:NUMERAL, should this be 12, particularly as that would match the preceding "56" and the subsequent "50"?

• Yes, done. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• "stone base, a plinth, and a tapering shaft which terminates in a Latin Cross" - Pevsner, to which I'll return, describes the shaft as "octagonal" which might be worth including. I've also got a query over Latin Cross - see query on the footnote in Commissioning.

• Responded on Pevsner below. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• "winged bronze allegorical figure" - it's not my forte, but should a comma or two be scattered about here?

• Went with a winged allegorical figure in bronze. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Background

Looks fine.

Commissioning

• "Over the prior nineteen months" - as above, 19?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• "the green across from St John's Church was chosen as the location—over other options such as a cottage hospital or almshouse—" - this left me a little lost. The first part of the sentence is referring to the location for a cross, but the following clause seems to be referencing alternatives to a cross, that is, a cottage hospital or almshouse. Looking at the source, I think there are two things at play - should the memorial be a cross or something else, decided at the 19 November 1918 meeting (Source 10), and where should the memorial be located. And then taking Source 13, it is clear that there was some back-and-forth over the location, "recent public meeting reversed the decision of its predecessor". I wonder if the sentence would be better split?

• Good catch. I had read the source as saying that the cottage hospital/almshouse were considered as potential locations for the memorial, but I think you're right that they were actually considered as the form of the memorial itself. Revised to During a public meeting on 19 November 1918, it was decided to erect a memorial on the green across from St John's Church. Other options that were considered included building a cottage hospital or almshouse. A committee was appointed to consider plans, and a Miss Phelp named as the honourary secretary. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• "By then £60 had been raised and one model had already been submitted, although the committee asked for additional proposals" - the source isn't clear. Do we know if that was Maryon's model?

• Unfortunately this is not stated in the source. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• "Around May 1920, the stone chosen for the memorial needed to be replaced" - do we know why? Unfortunately, this is one of the British Newspaper Archive sources to which I don't have access.

• Unfortunately no. The source says that In order to raise the extra amount required to provide for the particularly stone which has had to be substituted for that already chosen to form the memorial cross to be erected at Mortimer West a garden fete was held on Whit[?] Monday in the spacious grounds of St. Saviour's Vicarage, which were thrown open by the Rev. H. W. Rogers, and, favoured with glorious weather, the function was largely attended and proved an unqualified success. The opening ceremony was performed by Mrs. H. Benyon, and, in introducing her to the parishioners, the Vicar explained why the fete was being held, remarking that already £‎150 had been raised towards the memorial fund, but that an additional £‎25 was required to pay for the extra cost of a new kind of stone. (It then goes on to give some of the details of the event.) I suspect the answer is in the parish magazines, but, as noted, these will probably take a decent amount of work to obtain. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Footnote - In the lead, the top of the Mortimer Cross is described as a "Latin cross". It clearly is, but what are those bits around the arms? The Historic England listing for the Pangbourne Cross, where Waddington was inspired by Maryon's, calls that a wheel cross.

• Yeah, I see what you're saying, although I don't see any sources referring to it as a wheel cross. The source used to describe it calls it a "Latin Portland Stone Cross". As you say, the Pangbourne War Memorial has a wheel cross; the East Knoyle War Memorial, also designed by Maryon, does also. In both of these the wheel is more prominent, however, which may be why it's mentioned for them but not here. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Design

• "A mile to the west sits Mortimer railway station, comprising the Grade II* listed buildings Mortimer Station, and the waiting station thereto" - while all true and interesting, I'm not immediately seeing the relevance to this article? If you wanted to keep it, perhaps do so as a footnote, in which you could mention they are by Brunel, a fact which likely accounts for their high listing designation.

• Done on both counts. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• "the front and rear also include an inscription carved directly into the stone" - should that be "inscriptions" as there are two of them?

• Went with the front and rear also each include an inscription carved directly into the stone to be clear that it's one inscription per front/back. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• "an inscription commemorating those who died in the First World War, above the words "Lest We Forget"" - this is surely right, (though it should be capitalised throughout as a direct quote, I think) although I can't see this inscription in the excellent set of images you've managed to cajole, but in the Table it is rendered as "LEST WE NOT FORGET" (my bold).

• Good catch, fixed. You can see that line along the "ribbon" beneath the feet of the soldier/sailor on the first bronze plaque in this photo. As for the caps, per MOS:ALLCAPS, Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters) ... when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case, sentence case, or normal case, as appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I like the rendering of the Table. Very poignant. Four Bushnells, likely related. What a terrible loss of life.

History: First World War

• "Edith Isabel Benyon - not sure the bluelink adds much as it goes to her husband who is linked in the previous sentence.

• It's essentially serving the same function as a red link. She was made GBE in 1918 (joining this exclusive list), and almost certainly deserves her own article. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• "Charles Lambton" - might be worth giving him his rank, Brigadier General, as I assume this accounted for his presence.

• Went with "General", as this is how he was referred in the 1921 article. His obit says Brigadier General, although I'm not sure when he took on that title. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Never mind, Brigadier General it is. He obtained the rank in 1914. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• "Frances Mary Wyld" - is this lady likely ever to have a page? If not, do we need the redlink? The Source here gives me a 404 error.

• Fixed the URL. She was also heavily involved in county affairs and got her MBE in 1919 as a result (the obit refers suggests this was later upgraded to an OBE, but I think this may be in error). I'm not sure how likely it is that someone will take it upon themselves to turn the red link into blue, but she seems deserving enough. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• "James Benyon then addressed the crowd, thanking Lambdon" - who he, Ed? Or is it a typo for Lambton?

• It was a typo; fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• "as an inventive to act courageously" - more likely incentive?

• Yep, fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Concluding paragraph - does this really belong in the First World War section? Does it need to be given its own subsection?

• I struggled with this one; the timeline is rather inconvenient in that they unveiled a plaque commemorating the 50 years of (relative) peace that followed World War II before they unveiled the plaque commemorating World War II itself. I've now changed "Second World War" to "Subsequent history" and put the "50 years of freedom" sentence in there. Does that look any better? The alternative would likely be to, as you say, make a very short section on that one plaque. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

History: Second World War

• My only query here is why it took so long to include the names of those who died in WWII? Thousands of WWI memorials were modified/enhanced after WWII to include the names of those who died in the latter conflict, but I don't think it normally took 50 years to do so? I've actually been able to access the sources in this section and none of them explain the delay, although they do comment on it. It is odd. But if the sources don't help, then it can't be explained.

• I really have no idea. At some point it seems as if people ended up focusing on other priorities—perhaps explaining why a paper referred to it as a "10-year battle" by the brother of one of the dead to get it to finally happen. But why it ever got to that point—why a plaque wasn't organized immediately—is much more difficult to explain. Perhaps the smaller plaque on the front ("1939–1945") was added at the time, making it easier to not focus on adding a plaque with all the names? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Notes

• Fine, although personally I would pop the train station here (see above).

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

References

• These look fine. I will make the point that some, particularly the Berkshire at War and Vera's Diary ones, will likely cause problems if you ever went to FAC, but you know that.

• I'm all too well aware, as you say. The review for East Knoyle War Memorial was not a pleasant experience, and I'm torn on what to do with this one. The Berkshire at War pieces could be helped by getting my hands on the original parish magazines, although that will be a chore. I would also like to expand the background section with the (as you note) poignant details about those who died, although the source that best compiles these details would likely result in some discussion, to say the least. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Pevsner - for completeness, I would probably include this, although there's not much. The full entry reads: "A War Memorial by H. Maryon, 1921. Octagonal column on a plinth with bronze reliefs." It's page 389 of this, {{cite book| last1 = Tyack | first1 = Geoffrey | last2 = Bradley | first2 = Simon | last3 = Pevsner | first3 = Nikolaus| authorlink3 = Nikolaus Pevsner| title = Berkshire| series = [[Pevsner Architectural Guides|The Buildings Of England]] | year = 2010 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=mD9IAQAAIAAJ&q=editions:d-X077ffdBwC | publisher = Yale University Press |location = New Haven, US and London| isbn = 978-0-300-12662-4}}

• Thanks very much for finding this. I've requested a scan of the pages from my library, and will add once I have it in hand. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• My only other, unactionable, observation here is that it is passing strange it's not listed. A war memorial by a notable artist. It certainly should be. You should take it up with Historic England.

• When writing the article I actually did take a look into seeing what you need to do to nominate a listing. I might take a crack at it eventually—it does seem like the type of thing that would make sense to list. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Review Summary

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   The prose is generally of a very high standard. I've made a few suggestions.

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

   I think it meets all MoS requirements, subject only to my query about numbers as numbers or words.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   It is accurate and well-supported by a range of reliable sources.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   A couple of the local ones may not meet a strict interpretation of RS, but I think they are fine for GA.

   c. (OR):

   No evidence of OR found.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig doesn't suggest any issues, and a spot-check of the sources looks fine.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Fine.

   b. (focused):

   Yes.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   All good.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   All good.

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):

   It is very well-illustrated.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Captions are fine.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   I can formally put it On Hold if you want, but if you're able to get back with reasonable promptness, I won't bother. Issues responded to and pleased to promote.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

It's a most interesting read and a worthy addition to your ever expanding Maryon canon. KJP1 (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the thoughtful review, KJP1. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the very prompt responses and pleased to promote. KJP1 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2026 (UTC)