Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 18:07, 6 November 2024 (→Comments from Carcharoth: some general points (apologies for the length, but I think the points are germane)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Busbridge War Memorial

Busbridge War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Busbridge War Memorial/archive1

Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This is another Lutyens war memorial. Probably the last of his memorials in England that has enough coverage for an FA, but then I thought that about the Cenotaph and and I've managed to bring two others through FAC since then! This one is in a tiny village in what (at the turn of the 20th century) was a rural part of Surrey, to the south west of London but it tells an interesting story. Lutyens became a nationally renowned architect, responsible for an array of famous buildings, but his career kick-started in Busbridge when he was in his 20s and the village contains several of his works. Indeed, it was here that he first heard the term "cenotaph", a term he indelibly linked with war memorials, so it was only fitting that he should design the village's war memorial.

I created the article way back in 2016 but I've always felt there was more to say. A recent trip to Busbridge inspired me to see if I could "finish" it. I'm indebted to @Carcharoth, KJP1, and SchroCat: for their help and advice, including digging up some difficult-to-find sources. It's not a long article, but I think it tells the story comprehensively. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria thank you! Remiss of me. Now added to the other two images. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

• "7-metre (23-foot) tall" -> "7-metre-tall (23-foot)"
  • I see why that might be seen as desirable (and thanks for the template magic!) but it interrupts the sentence flow without clarifying anything that is likely to be misunderstood so I'd rather not unless it's a dealbreaker.
    • I'd rather it this way because 7-metre-tall is a compound adjective, so it shouldn't be separated, and this seems to be the specific situation where adj=mid should be used in Template:Convert.
      • Fair enough. I think it's more jarring this way but you are technically correct the best kind of correct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "and was upgrade to" -> "and was upgraded to"
• I recommend linking Surrey upon first mention in the body. Also, I recommend linking Berkshire and Somerset.
  • Surrey done. I don't think Somerset or Berkshire are directly relevant enough to require links in such quick succession to the war memorials (which are linked) located in those counties.
• "and possessing "the same over-developed sense of volumetric relations as" The Cenotaph." -> "and possessing "the same over-developed sense of volumetric relations as" the Cenotaph."
• A non-breaking space should be put between "H. M." as per MOS:INITIALS.
• "he unveiled several war memorials in the county" -> "he unveiled several other war memorials in the county".
• "national anthem." Can God Save the King be linked?
• There are several instances of brackets being used where I think commas would be better. I recommend these changes:
  • "Historic England (the government body responsible for listing) recognised Lutyens's war memorials" -> "Historic England, the government body responsible for listing, recognised Lutyens's war memorials"
  • "The cross was unveiled by General Sir Charles Monro (the colonel of the local regiment) on 23 July 1922" -> "The cross was unveiled by General Sir Charles Monro, the colonel of the local regiment, on 23 July 1922"
• The lead says this: " the relationship led to many commissions for Lutyens for country houses in the early days of his career." But in the body, the part mentioning Gertrude Jekyll came after the part about the country houses. Was Lutyen's relationship with Jekyll really the reason why Lutyen had many commissions for country houses?

  It's a little complicated without getting too far off-topic. He already had his own practice and was designing country houses, but his career really took off after Munstead Wood, from which he earnt a string of commissions for Jekyll's friends and extended family. This is the point that he became fashionable, though it's hard to tell whether that would have happened had he not met Jekyll. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Either way, the lead should be changed to be consistent with the body or vice versa. Steelkamp (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell: I still think this should be changed so that the lead is consistent with the body. The lead could be changed to say "Lutyens built his early reputation on designing country houses. His connection with Busbridge began in the 1880s when he partnered with Gertrude Jekyll, a local artist and gardener who lived at nearby Munstead Wood." This then does not imply something that the body does not. Steelkamp (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steelkamp Sorry to keep you waiting. I've made just about all the suggested changes except where I've commented above. Happy to chat if there's anything else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Steelkamp, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  After my one comment above is addressed, I will support. Steelkamp (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

HF

• "and he spent much of his time from 1917 onwards on memorialising its casualties." - not seeing where the source specifically references 1917
• "The memorial was designated a Grade II listed building on 1 February 1991." - citation placement issue; the following citation is which doesn't mention this, although it is supported by which is cited later in the paragraph

Good work; I expect to support. Hog Farm _Talk 01:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Supporting; not much to complain about here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Excellent article. A few minor quibbles:

• "His connection to Busbridge" – unexpected choice of preposition: usually, a house is connected to the gas mains, but a person is connected with somewhere or something.
• "and was upgrade to Grade II*" – upgraded?
• "led to multiple other commissions" – I don't think you need the "other", which looks a bit odd
• "The war memorial in Busbridge was one of several by Lutyens …" – and presumably still is.
• "he executed multiple designs for Jekyll's sister-in-law" – I'm not sure how one designs a sister-in-law. It might be less Frankensteinian if you changed "for" to "commissioned by", "on behalf of", or some such.
• "a lozenge-shaped tapered shaft" – chancing my arm, and quite prepared to be told I'm talking rubbish, but I thought a lozenge was shaped like the symbol of diamonds in a pack of cards, which the picture of the memorial doesn't resemble.
• "by The Reverend H. M. Larner" – a lower case t is usual for "the Reverend" in mid-sentence.
• "all are Grade II listed" – no real danger of your being misunderstood, but it might be as well to add "three memorials", lest someone determined to misunderstand think it was the three people who were listed.

That's all from me. I hope some, at least, of these comments are of use. Tim riley talk 13:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley, @Hog Farm Apologies for the delay. I think I've addressed all your comments. Please let me know if not! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Still not convinced by his designing a-sister-in-law nor what is lozenge-shaped. Tim riley talk 22:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley I've worded the sister-in-law; open to further wordsmithing. We share an understanding of what a lozenge is, but I assure you the memorial is lonzenge-shaped. Possibly slightly squat but it has four roughly diagonal sides. It's more evident towards the top because of the tapering. The photos we have on Commons (including some of mine) don't do it justice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

OK – that will do me fine on both points. Very pleased to add my support for this top-notch article. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Rather sad if this is the last of Harry's articles on war memorials we'll be seeing here. Tim riley talk 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. It's probably the last Lutyens (unless I do some of the memorials abroad) but it won't be the last war memorial. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Good! Tim riley talk 22:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Carcharoth

Only a few comments:

• I would quibble with "the Cenotaph in London, which he named after a garden seat at Munstead Wood" in the lead. Learning of the term 'cenotaph' and using it elsewhere is not the same as naming something after a garden seat. Would also quibble with the stained glass windows being said to "commemorate the war" (slightly clumsy phrasing - see also next comment).
  • I don't think it's inaccurate. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but for the sake of concision in the lead.
• Saying "a pair of stained-glass windows by Archibald Keightley Nicholson" mis-represents what is there. There are six 1919 stained glass windows by Nicholson, forming three pairs. One pair is for "the war" (the one you describe). The second pair is for two Old Shirburnians who fell in the war. The third pair is for Charles Henry Tisdall (another of those who fell).
  • It's not a misrepresentation to say that a pair exists when three pairs exist; the others are of limited relevance to the war memorial. Nonetheless, I've added in a note to be clear.
• Saying "locations of much fighting during the war" for Amiens Cathedral seems slightly odd. It overlooked the Somme battlefields, and would have been familiar to veterans who passed through or were garrisoned in or near there. Scapa Flow could also be slightly better explained. This is a case maybe of 'explain properly' rather than too briefly?
  • I was never very happy with this form of words but I can't come up with anything better and even that half a sentence is getting away from the subject at hand so I've culled it.
• Where can a curious reader go to read the 42 names? (Online, not on the church wall!) The names on the church wall include Francis McLaren who (as you note) is buried in the churchyard with his own memorial. I am unsure if McLaren (who was not a local, but married into the Jekyll family - a point that may be worth mentioning) is in the roll of honour for Busbridge (it looks like he met the inclusion criteria for the local war memorial committee that would have decided such things).
• Given that the memorial does not list the names, arguably the book of remembrance in the church is 'part' of the memorial, so might there be a case for including File:WWI book of remembrance in Busbridge Church (cropped).jpg? It is not the most visual picture, but would add to the article, IMO (the stained glass windows are shown in the church article, and we really should have a proper listing of Nicholson's windows).
• Can anything useful be used or cited to (or found elsewhere) from this page where the decision making process is outlined? Warning: the link to the 'names' has been cybersquatted. The names are available here (IWM Memorials Register). Surely there must be more details on the approach made to Lutyens to design the memorial? Are all the sources silent on this?
• One of the names of those the memorial commemorates is that of the 7th Earl of Shannon, Richard Bernard Boyle. No idea what the connection is with Busbridge. He inherited his father's earldom at the age of nine, and died aged 19 just over ten years later (EDIT: Apparently, at the time of his death his address was a house called 'Trusca' in Ramsden Road near Busbridge, towards Godalming. His younger brother was in India in 'Havelock House' and was named in the probate as adminstrating the estate's affairs).

That last point was a bit tangential, but I mention it in case there is anything useful in a suitable source (it looks to me as if the inclusion criteria were quite broad here, but I doubt anyone has written about that - it is not entirely clear if it was a parish war memorial or a more broadly defined 'local' war memorial for those with connections with the area, or simply relatives in the area). Carcharoth (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Harry. Just a reminder that there are still comments to address above. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding some supplementary comments to make my position clearer: (1) The Earl of Shannon comment is tangential (no sources talk about any of those the memorial commemorates as far as I can see), so please disregard this. (2) The sentence in the lead about Munstead Wood would be better if it stopped at the word "London". The origin of the name of the London Cenotaph is not needed in the lead of this article. (3) More relevant is the military service of the rector at the unveiling (for one of the clergy dedicating a local war memorial to have been a military chaplain serving in the war, and with direct experience, may have been relatively rare, it certainly adds context): The Rector, Rev. Larner, served as British Civil Chaplain in Calais from 1915-1916 and as chaplain to the forces in France and Belgium 1917-18. Full name and roles: "Rev Capt. Henry Meredith Larner" (c.1866-1950). It seems his appointment for the period 1917 to 1918 was temporary: see ACAD entry. Carcharoth (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I see that the Larner military connection is already there! I somehow missed that... The point I am trying to make (a bit clumsily) is that the military and war service aspects are not in the lead, while Munstead Wood is mentioned twice. Lutyens is mentioned in the lead seven times. The lead feels at times more like a paean to Lutyens, rather than a summary of the purpose and history of this war memorial. I would personally add the number of FWW names in the church (42) to the lead, add the name of Nicholson, maybe add the name of McLaren, and say more about the unveiling (e.g. that buglers from the Grenadier Guards were there, which is actually really fascinating - they were likely there because some of the men commemorated were from the Grenadier Guards, not, again, that anyone will have written about that - at least not yet). It is very likely, IMO, that the Grenadier Guard buglers were there, in part, because Lieutenant-Colonel L R Fisher-Rowe was among those being commemorated. It is awkward, because the point of such memorials is to commemorate all equally, so mentioning individual names in the Misplaced Pages article about the memorial feels wrong (but many of our articles on war memorials do just this, listing the 'famous' people named on the memorial or whom the memorial is intended for). There is a listing of names here and I am glad I looked at that because it turns out that a second person that this memorial commemorates has a Misplaced Pages article, namely Harry Pennell. And FWIW, you can see here an artwork of Sir Edward George Jenkinson one of the bereaved (his son John Jenkinson is commemorated here). Sir Edward would not have been in the crowd at the unveiling (he died in 1919), but you get the idea (e.g. Charles Hodson, Baron Hodson was the younger brother of Hubert Bernard Hodson (one of those named here), and one of the sisters of the Hodsons was Catherine Mary Maskew Hodson who was the wife of Harry Pennell - it appears that like McLaren, Pennell appears on this memorial because of having married into a local family). I do think mentioning Pennell can be justified (it is the sort of thing that would be of interest to those reading the article), and maybe even mentioning Fisher-Rowe (e.g. from this Western Front Association article, Fisher-Rowe features as one of "nine Lieutenant Colonels killed during the course of the battle" (the Battle of Neuve Chapelle) because of the Grenadier Guards connection. What you really want is a source saying why the Grenadier Guards buglers were there, but that doesn't seem to exist. It is also worth making the point (as some readers will assume that all those named died abroad) that three of those named are buried in the churchyard where this memorial is erected: McLaren, W. T. Knight, and Robert John Potter. We have photos available of all three headstones: 1, 2, 3). What I am trying to get at is that a reader stood in front of the war memorial, in the same churchyard, and reading this Misplaced Pages article would want to be told this, so they have the additional context - possibly in a footnote if you think it would disturb the flow of the main article. I do get the argument that for this wider context, the article on the church itself would be a better location for text and photos relating to this, but war graves and war memorial content feels more appropriate here in this article. In essence, I am questioning why there is so much content relating to Lutyens, Jekyll and Munstead Wood, compared to text about the purpose of the memorial and its place in the wider memorial landscape. I do think, given the 'group value' that includes the church itself, you could include more on the FWW graves and the memorial windows. I have gone on a bit (sorry). Will stop there. Carcharoth (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC) Edited to add bit more. Carcharoth (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

In a nutshell, there's so much about Lutyens because that's why this memorial is notable. It's why it's grade ii* listed and has a detailed list entry and why the majority of the source material is about Lutyens (four of the books are biographies of Lutyens, two discuss it in passing, and Pevsner only mentions it in relation to Lutyens's other works). Here's a fairly random example of a churchyard war memorial by an unknown architect. If Busbridge had been designed by an unknown/local architect, it probably wouldn't even be notable, much less a viable FA candidate. It doesn't even merit a mention in any of the books I have on British memorials generally, even Borg and Boorman who discuss hundreds of them including some fairly obscure ones. So I will definitely look at some of your suggested inclusions but the nutshell if the nutshell is that the article reflects the source material as it is, not as we wish it would be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a very fair summary of why this article (as you acknowledged in the nomination) is on the edge of what is possible for a featured article. Some might argue that this is better done as a series of well-referenced list entries. Indeed, I did try and look at the other 15 Lutyens 'War Crosses' (you use the phrase "one of 15 crosses Lutyens designed") that are presumably in List of works by Edwin Lutyens (which you have as a 'See also' in this article), but it is surprisingly difficult to identify which the 15 'war crosses' are from that list... My wider point was more that when writing about war memorials like this, as well as the general "why we care about Lutyens and his war memorials" spiel (which those reading your series of articles will be very familiar with by now), what occurred to me was that what is really needed is something explaining why we care (and still care) about war memorials (or more specifically, what it was about local war memorials in Britain)? You do cover this with your line "In the aftermath of the First World War (1914–1918) and its unprecedented casualties, thousands of war memorials were built across Britain." and the line "an eloquent witness to the tragic impacts of world events on this community". But then you don't say anything about the diverse range of types within those thousands of memorials, and who erected them. The real context only comes when you read an article such as World War I memorials. There are lines from that article and its references that (suitably rewritten) would really enhance this article (and others like it):

"In Britain and Australia, local community leaders were expected to organise local committees to create war memorials. Britain had a strong tradition of local government, and mayors, council chairmen or similar leaders would usually step forward to establish a memorial committee."

What you don't explicitly state anywhere in the article is that the origin of this memorial was supported by the church who provided the land on which it was erected. It was not erected in a public space such as the village green, but within the consecrated environment of the churchyard (in some villages, this would have caused problems relating to different Christian denominations, but clearly that issue was overcome here, or not a factor). And in mentioning the location within the churchyard you can mention the other memorials within the church's space (the three FWW graves and the memorial windows and so on). That it was part of an explicit scheme driven by the church. This makes it different from Mells War Memorial (on a public road) and Wargrave War Memorial (on a donated piece of land on the village green). This is a key point of difference which is not emphasised enough, nor referred to explicitly, in the current article. The other point of difference is that this is not a regimental memorial, or a workplace memorial, or a county memorial, it is a local (parish) memorial. You also need something in the lead explicitly stating that the memorial was to the dead of this village, as currently the phrase "the colonel of the local regiment" means people might think this is a regimental memorial. It is nice that a photo of the unveiling is here - probably not possible to obtain a freely licensed version of that, sadly. Maybe that page can be an external link? BTW, you mentioned Borg (1988) and Boorman (1991), and I know you use more recent sources, but so much has been written in the last 20 years. Is there nothing you have that would help the reader get a sense for what memorials like this meant to the communities that erected them? A general line that following their erection, such memorials became the centre of subsequent commemoration, whether personal or in the form of community events such as Armistice Day silences and services? On the unveiling itself, does the newspaper article you cite (from The Surrey Advertiser) explicitly say that the crowd included the families of the fallen soldiers? Do you leave that unsaid because it is so obvious, or because no sources explicitly state it? Carcharoth (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support on prose following my PR checks and the additional work done since. The only query I would have on a further readthrough is that you link First World War, but not Second World War; is that a deliberate choice? - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done

• Why is NHLE linked every time but Historic England not?

• Ranges should use endashes, including in titles

• How are you ordering Bibliography? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, many thanks for taking a(nother!) look. The bibliography was supposed to be alphabetical but I put a later addition in the wrong place, now fixed! Dash also fixed. The NHLE citations are produced by {{NHLE}}; apparently there's a "fewer links" option but that's actually "no links". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

A high-class article which I can support off the bat. Just a couple of comments:

• Maybe just note the dates of WWI at its first mention in the body?
  • Done for now but there's potential confusion with the dates on the memorial.
• Do we know who commissioned this particular memorial?
  • Unfortunately we know very little about how it came to be. These things were often not recorded in small villages or the recirds have been lost.
• I would switch the ordering of the second and third paragraphs of the "History" section, because the discussion of what the different "listing" classifications mean in the current third paragraph will reveal more about the actual listings in the current second.
• If the Abinger Common memorial is of similar design and nearby, maybe it's worth mentioning in the body?

Otherwise, very nice and moving work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Harry ? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I am still working on this. Two quick replies to Airship above. I'll be back but it might be Sunday. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)