Wikipedia

Talk:Mortimer War Memorial/GA1

< Talk:Mortimer War Memorial
Latest comment: 2 months ago by KJP1 in topic GA review

GA review

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago30 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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


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)Reply

Comments

edit
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?
  • "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"?
  • "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.
  • "winged bronze allegorical figure" - it's not my forte, but should a comma or two be scattered about here?
Background
Looks fine.
Commissioning
  • "Over the prior nineteen months" - as above, 19?
  • "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)Reply
  • "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?
  • "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)Reply
  • 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.
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.
  • "the front and rear also include an inscription carved directly into the stone" - should that be "inscriptions" as there are two of them?
  • "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).
  • 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.
  • "Charles Lambton" - might be worth giving him his rank, Brigadier General, as I assume this accounted for his presence.
  • "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)Reply
  • "James Benyon then addressed the crowd, thanking Lambdon" - who he, Ed? Or is it a typo for Lambton?
  • "as an inventive to act courageously" - more likely incentive?
  • 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)Reply
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)Reply
Notes
  • Fine, although personally I would pop the train station here (see above).
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.
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}}
  • 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)Reply

Review Summary

edit
  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)Reply

Thanks very much for the thoughtful review, KJP1. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Appreciate the very prompt responses and pleased to promote. KJP1 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mortimer_War_Memorial/GA1&oldid=1347277342"