Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/East Knoyle War Memorial/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [1].

East Knoyle War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unveiled with fanfare in 1920, the East Knoyle War Memorial will be 100 years old come September. Designed by Herbert Maryon and christened by Lord Rawlinson in the wake of the First World War, the memorial soon came to commemorate those killed in the Second; lately, the name of a soldier killed in Iraq has been added.

This article grew out of material taken from the article on Maryon, which was recently on this page; as luck would have it, the universe of sources is small, and HJ Mitchell's excellent work on Manchester Cenotaph provided a template to pattern this after (drink if you saw "war memorial" and thought this was his nomination). The Rambling Man has recently given it a thorough review, and with any luck, the memorial will be able to spend its centenary on Wikipedia's main page. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HJ Mitchell[edit]

Comments. I really like village war memorials. The big city ones are fascinating and have the advantage that their history is usually well documented but there's something altogether more poignant about how these little monuments symbolise the effect the First World War had and how it reached even these quiet backwaters. And it's lovely to see an article on a war memorial I haven't written at FAC! I had a look through the various books I've got on war memorials but sadly this one doesn't seem to be mentioned. :(

  • Architecture is a visual art. More photos would be nice. There are a few more on Commons from Geograph; perhaps one or two of them could find a home here? Longer term it would be great if we could find some local Wikipedians to take some better photos.
  • Good point. I've added another photograph, although, as you point out, it would be nice to supplement the current selection on Commons. I've just asked a Flickr user, and sent a (long-shot?) email to this site (Update: That's a no-go), to see if we might use some of those photographs. If that doesn't work, I suppose I could start trying to make some new friends.
  • Do we know anything at all about how Maryon became involved? I know how difficult this sort of information is to come by a century later. Many of Lutyens' smaller memorials were the result of a local connection, for example (often he'd done work for influential people in the area).
  • Sadly, no. At the time Maryon worked a county over, in Reading, Berkshire. He was apparently quite friendly with his colleague W. G. Collingwood, a better-known designer of war memorials, and it is possible the acquaintance played a role. The article on Collingwood also mentions Hardwicke Rawnsley—who Maryon knew from his time at the Keswick School of Industrial Art—having some involvement with memorials; although Maryon didn't leave that school on the best of terms, it at least suggests that Maryon was part of circles who were involved in the design of war memorials. Given your comment below, it is intriguing that W. G. Collingwood#War memorials shows a wheel cross on one of his memorials, and discusses his interest in the subject. (Lowstublick added that section in 2007, including discussion of Collingwood's 1919–20 diary—who knows, maybe there's something of interest there.) The online index of Collingwood's archive doesn't appear to add anything, and though I've spent some time with Maryon's papers, they don't appear to contain anything remotely relevant. I also sent an email to the address indicated on the East Knoyle website; I haven't heard back yet, but that's not entirely unexpected given the current state of affairs. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a long way of saying that this is an interesting question, but that the answer—if it exists—is likely written in sources that would be hard to cite here, and buried in boxes whose locations are currently unknown.
  • Just a thought but wheel crosses are relatively unusual as WWI memorials. Not unheard of by any means, but less common than conventional crosses, and usually found further south west than this, where there are stronger Celtic influences. I don't suppose any of the sources mention the reason for the choice?
  • See above.
  • listed as a Grade II building doesn't really make any sense. I use "designated a Grade II listed building", "designated" being the term Historic England uses (and which you use here in the lead).
  • Changed.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, HJ Mitchell. I agree that there's something poignant about village memorials. They feel quite personal, especially in a place like East Knoyle where the impact of the war can be traced house by house. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! :) Thank you for your thoughtful answers. It would be great if you manage to get any better photos. I've had some luck asking local Wikipedians (there's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiltshire) though it might be a struggle until things die down with Coronavirus. Support. 22:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the intro you first have "and a soldier killed by friendly fire in Iraq in 2003", and then "name of the soldier who died in the Iraq War". You only spell out and link the Iraq War at second mention, shouldn't that be at the first?
  • Reworded.
  • Shouldn't footnote 2 have a citation?
  • Citations are overrated. Just kidding: added.

Thanks, FunkMonk. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link WW1, war memorial, other unlinked terms, at first mention in article body?
  • Done.
  • I think the number of names is significant enough to not just be relegated to a footnote, perhaps mention under design.
  • I've added it to "History". The additional names don't really have a direct nexus with the design; they're not included, of course, but they also aren't direct omissions, since they are of people who had long since left the village.
  • "Mr H Fry" H.?
  • Done.
  • "Three clergy" Clergymen?
  • Done.
  • "one of which is inscribed "Best kept war memorial 1973" This maybe begs for further context under history?
  • Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any sources which actually talk about the award; the only source that touches upon it is the one used there, and it says only "History 2009: Stone flower holders on steps of memorial inscribed: BEST KEPT/ WAR/ MEMORIAL/ 1973". The memorial actually seems to have won the award two or three times; blowing up the sixth photo here shows a flower holder inscribed "British Legion best kept war memorial 1969," and photo three here shows a similar but faded inscription on another holder. As the 1969 inscription suggests, this appears to be an award offered by The Royal British Legion, although I don't see anything about it on their website. East Knoyle's newsletter (assuming I could acquire the offline copies) is unlikely to be any help, since, based on its volume numbers, it appears to have started around 1975. But as mentioned above I did reach out through the village's website, and if that leads to anything citable I will of course add it.

FunkMonk, further responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - nice little article, and of course it'll be good if you can find more info about those "best kept" awards. FunkMonk (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Nice article. I have a few comments:

  • perhaps state that East Knoyle is a village and use village instead of town throughout
  • Done, with one exception. East Knoyle is both a village and parish per its article, and as far as I can tell the distinction is technical/administrative. Since the memorial says it is "in memory of the men of this parish", I've left the relevant line in the lead unchanged ("it was originally intended to commemorate the 20 soldiers from the parish who died during the First World War").
  • suggest "Even many of those who survived did not return to the village"
  • I'd rather leave this as is, because the village is mentioned later on in the sentence ("and by 1918 the village had only 650 residents").
  • Peacemaker67, reworded: "Even many of those who survived faced diminished opportunities at home, did not return to the village; by 1918, it had only 650 residents." --Usernameunique (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • principle→principal
  • Fixed.
  • Wyndham family
  • Good catch, fixed.
  • "Hon. George Herbert" but The Honourable in this instance is just a courtesy, so I don't think it should be used, if necessary, in full I think with link.
  • Makes sense. Using "the Hon." was intended to show that his presence on the committee conferred some status, but I've just created an article on him (George Sidney Herbert), which should get that across.
  • the Bibliography needs to be alphabetised
  • Whoops, fixed. It originally was, but then I filled in author names and forgot that would change it.

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Peacemaker67. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, a pleasure. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note: Image and source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

ALT text and use seem OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • A quick drive-by concern (but hopefully easily resolvable) File:1923 - East Knoyle postcard - front.jpg - this image appears to have first been published in the UK (it's an English postcard from an English manufacturer, posted from the UK etc.) - but it's lacking a UK image licence. The US publication date doesn't look it's necessarily pre-1925 either (it was created in the UK pre-1925, but there's no evidence provided for it having been published in the US before 2020) Hchc2009 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC) (Just for clarity, Oppose on image review until fixed)[reply]
    @Hchc2009:Actually, the postcard is signed "9/8/23" and in light of the definition of published I wouldn't assume that it wasn't also published at that time unless it was only sent a few years later. It doesn't matter where the publication occurred, only that it meets the definition in US law. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Commons policy on this states that "uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." - that's definitely the UK in this case, so a UK licence is needed. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, for enwiki purposes we only care about the US copyright, so if UK copyright is an issue we upload the file locally under a {{PD-US-abroad}} licence. As for the UK copyright, I see that the postcard attributes a company about which I can't find information. If we assume it's an anonymous work then commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown would apply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Hchc2009 and Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've also asked at the copyright desk, and the tag has been updated accordingly. Incidentally, the postcard was also postmarked in August 1923, so the fact of publication as of then is beyond doubt. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It still needs a UK-Anonymous tag, Usernameunique - UK law requires evidence of the research carried out to determine the identity of the author before anonymity can be claimed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I understand it from the above-linked discussion, the current tag is a general anonymity tag that covers the UK as well. And as the author is corporate—one "R. Wilkerson & Co., Trowbridge"—it seems that the copyright duration is the same. But Hchc2009, if you think there is a better tag(s) or way of handling this, please do suggest one. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • As per above, I believe the UK-Anonymous tag, accompanied by evidence of the research carried out to determine the identity of the author would make it compliant with UK law. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hchc2009, I've added an explanation under "Summary". I was about to also add the PD-UK-unknown template, but realized that it is encompassed by the PD-anon-expired template, which covers "countries and areas where the copyright terms of anonymous or pseudonymous works are 95 years or fewer since publication." (The postcard was published at least 97 years ago). But let me know if you have a different read of the interplay between the templates. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—oppose[edit]

  • Why is "The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (1918)" used? It looks duplicated and there are much less questionable sources for an outline of Maryon's career.
  • That source is used for the specific facts that Maryon taught casting and metalwork. All things considered, that work is actually a trove of information about Maryon's early career and education; it essentially lists Maryon's cv as of 1920, whereas later sources aren't nearly as detailed. In terms of reliability, the University of Glasgow's database of British and Irish sculptors relies heavily on that source in their entry on Maryon.
  • Then why not cite the University of Glasgow source directly, which I see has the relevant information?
  • Mostly because there are already two sources, and the 1918 source (if one clicks through to it) contains a more detailed summary of Maryon's career as of 1918—that is, right as the war memorial was about to be built. But we can add the University of Glasgow source as well if you prefer.
  • I am skeptical of the reliability of The East Knoyle Newsletter, which is edited by one person who publishes various submissions without any indication of fact checking. Seems that this is basically a blog.
  • As the name implies, it's the village newsletter. I'm not sure we're going to get anything better, or, for that matter, anything else; larger newspapers are unlikely to have reported on the 2017 cleaning of the memorial, for example. Generally speaking, it's used for small, uncontroversial facts.
  • I would question the WP:DUE nature of that information if it's not reported by a more reliable source. Yes, memorials are cleaned, but is that really encyclopedic information? I think info reported by the RBL but printed in the newspaper can remain, but I don't see the other articles meeting WP:SPS.
  • For a village war memorial, I think we're lucky to have what we can get. "WP:DUE" leads to a discussion of how articles must be written from a neutral point of view; so unless you think that the article is omitting a "significant viewpoint" about that 2017 memorial cleaning, I think we're on safe ground. And as you yourself said, the newsletter has an editor in addition to the authors of the individual submissions—ipso facto, it's not a self-published source.
  • vdocuments source May be reliable if it's actually published by Commonwealth War Graves Commission, but if so it should be confirmed by something other than a dodgy file-hosting service.
  • Yeah, that's a sketchy site for sure, but I haven't been able to find it hosted on a more mainstream site; I assume it was once hosted on a normal website, got scraped and placed on "vdocuments.mx" (and pdfslide.net and the like), and then was removed from the normal website at some point. The underlying document is cited on East Knoyle's website, however, so I don't doubt that it is reliable.
  • Is it? The website lists "The Commonwealth War Graves Commission" as a source, but how do we know it's the same document?
  • Wrong source; it's not "The Commonwealth War Graves Commission", but rather "'East Knoyle & The Great War' by Dawn Small".
  • Western Gazette 1036. should be 1936?
  • Yes, fixed.
  • Other sources look OK.
  • I was able to confirm information from the Historic England source by spot checking. buidhe 22:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to oppose because my concerns have not been addressed, also in light of Gog's and Ealdgyth's comments below. buidhe 07:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, the local sources that have not been eliminated are now used solely in the final paragraph of the article, discussing the memorial's role in the 2018 World War I centennial commemorations. Additionally, in-text attribution clearly identified what information comes from the newsletter or the village website. Does this address your concerns regarding reliance and reliability? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although there has been improvement, unfortunately I cannot support as I do not see the village newspaper as being reliable for any statement for Wikipedia purposes, nor do I think that extremely local governments have a presumption of reliability. This could be fixed by removing information on 2018 events. buidhe 01:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "In the aftermath of the First World War and its unprecedented casualties, thousands of war memorials were built across Britain. Virtually every village, town, or city erected some form of memorial to commemorate their dead." This is not supported by cite 1.
  • "In East Knoyle, the effects of the war were particularly acute." The village newspaper seems a week reed on which to base the statement that "the effects of the war were particularly acute." Which I don't see supported by the source anyway. Could you quote the phrase which supports the text? (On the surface, 20 dead from a population of 853 - 2.3% - does not seem unusual against a national death rate of service personnel during the war of c. 1.9%.)
  • Perhaps "hard felt" would be better phrasing that "particularly acute", since that sentence isn't supposed to be a comparison to the national affects. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is either paraphrased from a RS, or for broader statements is the consemsus of scholarly opinion is fine. I wasn't suggesting that we OR. If you have a RS which suggests that the effects of the war were "hard felt", or similar, in East Knoyle, then fine.
  • "A request for information in our village newsletter was answered by the Jolliffe family who came forward with their sad story of three brothers lost in this conflict." Is the quote, from what looks like an exceedingly amateur blog, to support "including three brothers". I do not doubt the good intentions of the author(s) or their informants, but this is not what I would call a RS, certainly not for FAC.
  • It's also supported by the other source to that sentence. That website includes details on everyone who was killed, including Edwin Jolliffe, Fred Jolliffe, and Victor Jolliffe; I didn't include each link as a separte source because that would be fairly cumbersome, but can do so if you think it makes sense. Note that the names also appear on the memorial, which implicitly supports the three brothers point.
As I am doubting the RSness of both sources the support of the second hardly helps. The coincidence of three casualties from a village sharing a surname does not "implicitly support" their being brothers.

I am only three sentences in and I am very unhappy with the sourcing. I have grave doubts about East Knoyle Newsletter, East Knoyle WWI Trail and East Knoyle & The Great War on which a great deal of the article is based and so am strongly leaning oppose.

  • I have just paused to read Buidhe's source review as I seemed to be straying into that area. They seem to be similarly dubious. Before going further I would like to have it explained how these three sources meet WP:RS. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I have to second Gog's concerns on this. buidhe 12:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your comments, Gog the Mild. Respectfully, I think your comment that "a great deal of the article is based" on the three sources in question is a reflection of the three-sentence portion of the article you say you have read, rather than on the article generally; had you read further, I think you would agree that the primary drivers of information in the article are the 1920 Western Gazette piece, and the Historic England list entry.
With that said, I am happy to look again for what other sources and information might shed light on the impact of World War I on East Knoyle. Having conducted a thorough search before nominating the article, however, it strikes me that the most germane information about the impact of the war on a small village is likely to be found via 1) the village newsletter, 2) the village website, and 3) residents who specifically researched the impact as part of 2018 centennial events—that is, the sources in question—and that a consolidated assessment elsewhere is likely to be difficult to find or non-existent. It would thus be helpful if you could clarify whether you are "leaning oppose" because you think the article needs the background information in question, but backed up by different sources which might or might not exist, or because you think the article should not include that information if no other sources exist. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 55 cites in the article; 16 are to these three sources; 13 after the paragraph in question.
The onus is on a nominator, ie you, to establish that sources used meet WP:RS. If this cannot be established, information which is reliant on them and cannot be sourced elsewhere should be removed. This applies to all articles, not just at FAC.
I have no view as to whether the article needs the information dependant on those 16 cites - 29% of the total cites. Clearly it is not going to be effected by not stating that three brothers are commemorated. I don't wish to be drawn as to whether or not I might support some hypothetical article which looks different to and is sourced differently to this one. Show it to me and I will form an opinion.
I agree that much of the information on a small village memorial may come from the kind of sources you identify. That is why most do not have and never will have Wikipedia articles.
I am wary of your suggestion that one may use the subject of an article as a source. That would seem to me to be a primary source and WP:PRIMARY would apply: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." etc.
I realise that you have put a lot of work into this and that this isn't what you would like to hear. I am trying to be clear, but if I am not, or if you have further queries, don't hesitate to ask. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond in full later (and will take a further look at sources in the meantime), but want to make one point clear, which is that it is seriously misleading to state that "[t]here are 55 cites in the article; 16 are to these three sources; 13 after the paragraph in question.". 8 of those 13 citations appear in the very next paragraph—that is, as part of the same background section around which this entire discussion revolves. And the remaining 5 are used for minor points in a paragraph about the recent history of the memorial. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique, you may be fighting the wrong battle here. All cites need to meet WP:RS. It doesn't matter whether one cite or 101 fail to meet it. I once opposed one of Buidhe's fine articles because two of its 100+ cites were to a masters thesis, which fails WP:RS. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well one might question your memory of that review, Gog the Mild, but on a more germane subject, I've added several new sources to the background section and effectively cut out the second paragraph. In doing so I incorporated some of the book that KJP1 pointed out (thanks for that). Although I experimented with adding more, it increasingly seemed that the pre-war fortunes of the Seymours, and the post-war fortunes of the Wyndhams, are somewhat tangential, and I've thus largely removed that from the article. At this point the offending sources have been entirely removed from the background section. The East Knoyle website remains cited towards the bottom, during the discussion of the villages' 2018 observances, but—to borrow your phrase from the above link—"the context for this is clearly identified in the text." And in any event, it's a good excuse to read down that far. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am switching to oppose. My concerns have not been addressed, and reading further into the article has raised new ones. I am quite used to articles nominated for FAC, including my own, needing work, but this one, it seems to me, is at the point where it may be best to withdraw, work on it at leisure, and resubmit. Obviously a prompt resolution or rebuttal of my concerns would be equally acceptable. My main, but not only, concerns are:

  • 1b "places the subject in context": We are told nothing of East Knowle. No details of its location, economy, geography, social structure; either before or after either world war.
  • Generally speaking, that's what the article on East Knoyle (not "Knowle") is for. But in any event, some such contextual information was in this article, until you protested about the sources. It is surprising that you do not acknowledge this, given that you are now burning the other end of the wick; the fact that information was removed (rather than new sources used) merely reflects that there are few sources that discuss the history of a local village numbering some 600 residents, and fewer still that dig into the impact of the world wars on it. The Victoria County History on East Knoyle (link), for example, mentions the wars only in passing, and the list of reference books on the section of the village's website about WWI in noticeably slim. To "withdraw [the article], work on it at leisure, ans resubmit" would do no help here, unless more sources were published in the interim. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a follow up to this, I've looked through the featured articles on war memorials. Many of these, such as Spalding War Memorial, Devon County War Memorial, and Northampton War Memorial, have little—if any—context about the communities in which the memorials were placed, or the people they commemorated. This suggests that any lack of reliable sources to provide context should not inhibit the ability for an article to attain featured-article status. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b again: The total in the article on the addition of the names of 12 WWII dead the 20 from WWI is "After the Second World War, and later the Iraq War, additional engravings were added to commemorate the additional dead.[15] Twelve names were added to the rear panel after the Second World War, and the conflict was added to the front."
  • That's not fully true; in particular, that summation omits the information about the circumstances in which the soldier was killed in Iraq, which also links to an article about the incident in which he was killed. But more to the point, the sources simply due not include any information about the World War II and Iraq War-related aspects of the memorial that does not already appear in the article. The absence is unfortunate, if not entirely surprising; the unveiling of the memorial (and accompanying renovations to the village hall) was more likely to attract attention than the additions to it, years later. And if those are covered anywhere, it would most likely be in the newsletters that you have repeatedly called unreliable. —Usernameunique (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" On 7 May I commented “I have grave doubts about East Knoyle Newsletter, East Knoyle WWI Trail and East Knoyle & The Great War" and requested that “I would like to have it explained how these three sources meet WP:RS”. I have not had a direct response and the first two are still used. I still don’t see how they meet WP:RS nor how they could be considered "high quality". I have similar issues with Wiltshire Footprints. Other citations, while superficially acceptable, are not, IMO, fully satisfactory: take cite 1 where the claim that the First World War had “unprecedented casualties” rather than being supported by a consensus of scholarly opinion, relies on the introduction to a scholarly article which “explores the role of print culture in the Arts and Crafts movement's campaign to guide the nation in its commemoration of the war dead”.
  • And in response to your earlier comment, I significantly reduced the reliance on those sources, which was already slim; in addition to your further comment here, I've banished Wiltshire Footprints to "Further reading", and added in-text attribution to the single line that cites to the newsletter. It now reads "According to the village newsletter, the memorial was cleaned in 2017, and a ceremony held there on 11 November 2018 to mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the war." The use of the "East Knoyle WWI Trail" source is similarly clearly identified in the text; I mentioned this before, although you appear to have overlooked it. Meanwhile, cite 1 is used to support the fact that Britain was peppered with memorials following World War I (using an article about the Arts and Crafts movement's contribution seemed apt given that Maryon was a part of that movement)—but if you really think the article needs a specific cite for the fact that World War I had "unprecedented casualties", I'm sure I can come up with a couple hundred.
More generally, in a previous source review, you spoke about how the context of a source matters for reliability: "The sources are all solidly reliable ... with the exception of a couple of the web sites referenced where the context for this is clearly identified in the text." Your comments here seem to omit that nuance, despite the fact that 1) context is baked into the standards for reliability (see Reliable sources § Context matters), and 2) when dealing with the war memorial of a small village, many sources are likely to be uncontroversial without being published in something akin to a peer-reviewed work. The information supported by the sources you have questioned could easily be removed from the article without much damage; but the article remains better with it, and taken in context—local sources for local, uncontroversial, events—the sources are reliable. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2a "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic": The lead contains information not in the article – that East Knowle is in Wiltshire, and even England.

I would welcome comments, either way, from Buidhe, who has reviewed the sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The research pushed the recognised number from 20 to 27" Could we be told the recognised number of what? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild, clarified: The research pushed the recognised number of East Knoyle deaths from 20 to 27. I also made an edit two sentences earlier to clarify that the section refers to World War I. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from KJP1[edit]

Re. the above discussion on sources, I have sympathy for both views. I think it's undeniable that village newsletters etc. are not the strongest of sources, they are not "published" in the sense that books are published and they are not subject to the same editorial/quality controls. But they often are among the only available sources, and I do think that listed memorials such as this warrant articles. Much, but not quite all, of the use to which these sources have been put is in the two-paragraph background section. It might help if use was made of this: Clouds: The Biography of a Country House, Caroline Dakers, 1993, Yale University Press, New Haven, US and London, isbn 9780300057768, [2]. The problem for me is that the second para. interweaves the fortunes of the Seymour family, owners of the Clouds estate until 1876, and the Wyndhams, owners from then until the 1930s. If the para. was split a bit, it could firstly cover the declining fortunes of the Seymours, due to losses on their investments in the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway, and their consequent sale of the estate to the Wyndhams.(pp=46-48) Then it could cover the Wyndham's troubles, with the deaths in rapid succession of Percy Wyndham in 1911 (p=175), George Wyndham in 1913 (p=190) and Percy Wyndham in 1914, (p=193) the estate duties that became payable, the bequest of the estate to Percy's cousin, rather than his uncle Guy, (pp=194-195), and Madeline Wyndham's memorial to her multiple lost relatives.(p=203) Hope this is of some use. It won't totally remove the reliance on the contested sources, but it might bring their use within acceptable bounds? KJP1 (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • I have to oppose on the basis that the article relies on a local newsletter, which does not begin to qualify as a "high quality" reliable source. What makes the various contributors such as Ron Clarke an expert in this field? And why are anonymous contributions to a local newsletter considered high quality, much less reliable?
  • After you comments here, I revised the article such that it currently cites to the said newsletter a single time, and with in-text attribution.
  • I also have some concerns with the number of references to primary sources, such as the various Western Gazette articles, some of which lack bylines.
  • If you would like to articulate a more detailed concern I would be happy to respond to it, but despite the copious attention paid to the sources, you are the only one to suggest the Western Gazette articles are in any way problematic. For what it's worth, the only mention of the importance of bylines in either WP:Reliable sources or WP:Primary sources regards the identification of sponsored content—which is not an issue here.
  • There is also a concern with using the primary sources (such as the Western Gazette article from 1920) to do original research - the sentence "In East Knoyle, a village and civil parish in Wiltshire, England, the effects of the war were hard felt, with at least 20 of the 853 people who lived in the village before the war dying during it." is sourced to the census (here and to a newspaper article here) but neither source supports the conclusion that "the effects of the war were hard felt" - the census just shows that from 1911 to 1921 the population dropped 124 folks. The number of "at least 20" appears to have been arrived at by counting the names mentioned as commemorated in the newspaper article. This is what historians do, not what encyclopedia editors do.
  • I've removed the clause "the effects of the war were hard felt"; it now reads "In East Knoyle ... at least 20". I've also added another source for the use of the number 20. The "at least" is used because (as discussed later in the article) the number is higher if you include people who were born in the village but raised elsewhere. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also a lot of issues with the formatting of the citations:
    • One big issue is that any footnote that is to a citation that doesn't have an author is incredibly difficult to find in the list - because the list puts anonymous works in order by title of the article/etc but the footnotes use the publisher, which must be ferreted out from further into the citation.
      • I've reformatted this to eliminate sfn footnotes when not needed (i.e., when a specific page out of a larger page range is not being cited). Admittedly, as much as I generally like sfn footnotes, they weren't a great fit for this article.
    • the short footnote to "Studies in Conservation" should be italicized. It's also difficult to find if you don't use the linking (which folks on mobile, etc may not be able to do)
      • Addressed with reformatting. What do you mean by "use the linking"?
    • Current footnote 25 (East Knoyle Newsletter 2018) - which 2018 is it?
      • Addressed with reformatting.
    • "Vision of Britain" should be italicized.
      • Addressed with reformatting.
    • Not seeing that ""East Knoyle – Cross". War Memorials Register. Imperial War Museums. Retrieved 17 March 2020" is used in footnotes?
      • It's clearer with the reformatting, but it supports the line Several stone flower holders rest on the top step, one of which is inscribed "best kept war memorial 1973".
    • Not seeing that ""Five Grandsons of Madeline Wyndham". War Memorials Register. Imperial War Museums. Retrieved 17 March 2020." is used in the footnotes?
      • It's clearer with the reformatting, but it supports two clauses in "Background": and five members of the Wyndham family, and the matriarch of the family commissioned two plaques for St. Mary's Church, one commemorating her five grandsons.
    • I eventually figured out that "Historic England Reading" was "Historic England. "University of Reading War Memorial (1113620)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 27 March 2020." and that "Historic England East Knoyle" was "Historic England. "East Knoyle War Memorial (1438366)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 27 March 2020." but that's not very clear at all.
      • Addressed with reformatting.
  • And I also have concerns about the level of detail - the first two paragraphs of "History" seem to basically regurgitate the 1920 newspaper article on the dedictation, down to the composition of the audience, the exact hymns sung, and the fact that it was the speaker's last public act before leaving for India... surely this is way more detail than an encyclopedia article on a memorial needs?
  • The level of detail is partly because, with little published information about the memorial, there seems to be little harm in adding what information is published. Although the 1920 Western Gazette article states that Rawlinson would be soon leaving for India, it is actually his 1925 obituary which confirms that his East Knoyle dedication was his last public act before departure—further evidence that this fact is worthy of mention. And while I am sympathetic to the view that granular information may be beyond the scope of interest of some, Theramin's comments below—discussing, among other things, people mentioned in and out of footnotes—show that it is within the scope of interest of others (and for that matter, other reviewers). Unsurprisingly, I take the latter view. The unveiling of something as intensely intimate as a war memorial seems like a unique snapshot into the social, political, and historical dynamics of its village. The 20-odd people mentioned clearly comprise a subset of the people considered notable in the village—and more generally, too, given that a quarter already have Wikipedia articles and more probably deserve them. There's also some value in mentioning the village's institutions that were present for the commemoration—from the band, to the Girl Guides, to the choir—that undoubtedly formed part of the social fabric of the community, and would have been most visible on days like these.
  • All in all, I must oppose. I have sympathy for the desire to have an article on the memorial, but I'm afraid there just isn't the quality of sourcing to have that article be FA. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ealdgyth, your general comments regarding the quality and availability of sources are, as you know, discussed below. But your other comments are now addressed in full above. Your comment about the formatting of citations, in particular, is well taken. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1[edit]

With apologies if I am oversimplifying others' concerns, but I think this broadly boils down to a debate around Reliable Sources and the FAC Criteria, specifically 1.c. "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". For me, the other criteria are met, and everyone agrees that the memorial is Notable, the issue being whether this article about it meets FA criterion 1.c. For me, it does. I agree, as noted above, that The East Knoyle Newsletter (and the Royal British Legion Updates within it), and The East Knoyle WW1 History Trail (I'm personally less concerned about the Western Gazette) aren't the strongest sources. But they are likely the only sources, they are not being used to support controversial content, they are authored by local, and knowledgeable enthusiasts about whom it is reasonable to assume good faith, they appear to have some editorial oversight, they are published, and by a bona fide company. Looking at Wikipedia:Verifiability; it contains the standard policy caveat, "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" (my bold). Newsletters are listed under "Sources that are usually not reliable" (my bold again). If one takes a strict (some will say correct) interpretation of these, and 1.c., particularly the "high-quality" reference, one will likely Oppose. If you take a more flexible interpretation, as I do, one can probably Support. As an aside, I think the contested sources underpin the last four sentences of the article. For me, they could be deleted without too much detriment to the article overall. But that's not my call. KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I've had citations to local historians (woolly mammoth) and blogs written by experts (Nemegtomaia) specifically accepted at FAC (see nomination pages), since they also contained non-controversial information not found elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are not judging the sources against Wikipedia:Verifiability, we are judging them against the FAC criteria. What WP:Ver, or any other policy, says is irrelevant; are the sources "high-quality reliable" ones. It seems clear they are not high quality. That they may be the only available sources is unfortunate, but also irrelevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog - I don't think I'd agree that the policy is irrelevant. Criterion 1.c. draws on it and indeed, in relation to "reliable sources", is defined by it. But I absolutely accept that others may take a different view, as you do. We shall see what the coordinators think, which will be helpful both here, and for future FACs. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For me, some of the sources do not meet WP:RS; obviously, others may disagree. But if they did, to meet criterion 1c they would need to be "high-quality reliable sources". They aren't. As you say, it is down to the coordinators to agree or not with this, so I am trying to be as clear as I can on where I believe the criteria are not met. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Usernameunique[edit]

This nomination currently has two opposes—by Gog the Mild and Ealdgyth—and an oppose on sources, by Buidhe. As the concerns are largely the same, I'm addressing them together. Since big blocks of text follow, I'll summarize my response up front: The two sources which the opposes take issue with—a village website and newsletter that provide limited, noncontroversial information about the village's war memorial—are contextually reliable. There is no higher bar to clear, because the relevant historical discussion shows that the "high-quality" threshold is a weighing mechanism that applies only when multiple reliable sources for a fact exist. As a result, the sources are high-quality reliable sources. Finally, the article is in the best shape it can be with the sources we have, which (I believe) takes it to featured-article level.

The concerns center around the use of a village newsletter which, as of writing, is cited for a single sentence in the article: According to the village newsletter, a ceremony was held there on 11 November 2018 to mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the war. Per the opposes, the newsletter is likely not a reliable source, but certainly not a high-quality one. Gog the Mild has also voiced concern with citations to the East Knoyle website, which sustain two related sentences about how the village marked the centenary. Other information that was sourced to these sources at the outset of the nomination has since been removed. Ealdgyth, however, has written that given the state of the extant sources, this article could never become a featured article; and while Gog the Mild's positions have jumped around, the best way of cohering his logic is probably to understand his objections as mirroring Ealdgyth's. If push became shove and the outcome of this nomination depended on removing the three sentences, I would probably do so. But I don't think any of the above votes would change if I did so, and more importantly, I think the article would be worse as a result.

A third reason for keeping the sources behind the three sentences in question is that the sources are arguably "high-quality reliable sources" under the FAC guidelines. The gravamen is context. As KJP1 has discussed above, the definition of "reliable source" is context driven; village sources on the village memorial may even count as self-published sources as sources on themselves. Although the oppose votes seem to treat "high-quality" in a vacuum, the discussion that birthed the phrase shows that it is both context dependent, and qualified by the prefatory language "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The discussion involved an attempt to ensure that, within the pool of reliable resources that exists for a fact, the better ones are used. Significant effort was made to create a standard that neither requires editors to read thousands of sources on a topic (appropriately, World War I was the exemplar) and select only the few highest, nor excludes articles (e.g., pop-culture pieces) which lack academic-quality sources. As Ealdgyth put it at the time, As long as the sources used in the article meet RS, if there are no 'better' ones available (such as for wrestling, where there are few scholarly articles on the subject of wrestlers) then everything would be fine.

To me, this article represents the best possible version of itself (or close to), which is what I understand the FAC criteria to broadly ask for. Sure, it would be nice to have more, and better, sources. But we're not waiting for the next fossil to be uncovered before giving T. Rex a bronze star, and Jesus graced the main page with or without a reliable source stating that he walked on water. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Usernameunique on this one. We're always going to struggle for sources for small village monuments (part of the reason most of my war memorial FAs are on big city memorials like the Manchester one). I don't see a big problem in using a local newsletter or local historian for a couple of uncontroversial facts about the village's war memorial. It's about appropriate sources for appropriate material; for details on Maryon's career, I'd expect to see more scholarly sources used, for example, but the material that's available for, say, the Cenotaph is going to be massively disproportionate to the material available for a small village memorial. If anything, I applaud Usernameunique for developing the article to such a high standard and making it the best it can be with the material available; it's inspired me to go back and look at some of Lutyens' smaller memorials to see if I can do anything more with them. There is little doubt the article is comprehensive and thoroughly researched; the sticking point is that it uses the best available sources, which is the same argument applied to (eg) wrestling articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for what it's worth, I've been through all my books on war memorials. Sadly, none of them mention East Knoyle or Maryon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Theramin[edit]

Signing off

I am afraid I have a laundry list of nits which, taken together, suggest this article could do with some more maturation. First the small stuff.

  • Capitalized (and linked).
  • You have linked John 15:13 to Wikisource, where the same text appears without any context, whereas linking to our encyclopedic article on John 15 might be more informative.
  • I've split the baby and gone with both: John 15:13. The John 15 article is a bit undeveloped at the moment, and would probably work by itself if built out.
  • Good call, done. (And yes, I was the one to add that church and image to the list.)
  • The flower pot is not inscribed "best kept war memorial 1973": like the memorial, the inscription here also uses upper case throughout.
  • Done.

More importantly, given the article is quite short, and this almost has the flavour of a family memorial, you could spend more time on the personal relationships of the people involved.

  • Who was F. W. Barnes? His name appears twice. He is mentioned in the text in the section "Commissioning" but relegated to a footnote in "History", unlike the other main, and some secondary, characters. If he is important enough to mention the first time, perhaps he should be added to the second list in the text?
  • I've spent quite a bit of time trying to find out more information about him, but have had little luck beyond a string of mentions of him at civic causes. And frustratingly, his full name remains elusive. (He doesn't appear to be listed in East Knoyle on the 1911 census; I wonder if he might have moved to the village subsequently, but the 1921 census is not yet available.) We're not completely out of luck, however, as one news article mentions his general contributions to civic life, particularly his "extreme willingness in helping on anyone or any cause in the village". I've added this to the article, along with brief blurbs about the others on the committee. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I've not had much luck either. Perhaps he was a local official, or an estate or family functionary. Absent better sources, I guess this is a dead end. Theramin (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why mention Dr and Mrs J. Blythe? Or Inspector Townshend? Who are they?
  • They were considered worthy of note by the Western Gazette, as they were specifically named. It's clear that "Dr and Mrs J. Blythe" were Joseph Charles Blythe and his wife Frances Louisa Blythe (née Browning), though little other information is available other than that the former was a physician and surgeon from East Knoyle. That's probably why the Western Gazette considered him worth mentioning; as a local doctor, he would have been well known. At any rate, I've changed the mention to "the local physician and surgeon Joseph Charles Blythe and his wife." It's difficult to tell as to "Inspector Townshend," especially without even a hint as to his first name. It seems likely that he was a local police officer or similar, which would also explain why he was considered worth mentioning—he was likely a known presence in the village. But without more, I don't think there's anything we can add. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I think saying "the local physician and surgeon" helps; else, like "Inspector Townshend", they pop up here without any more context than Messrs Miles, Alford, Francis, Jones, Burton, and Bath, and he like them should probably drop to the footnote too. Theramin (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm comfortable leaving "Inspector Townshend" in the body, since I think "Inspector" is sufficient for a reader to draw a reasonable guess as to his role at the gathering (as outlined above). Unlike those in the footnote, he is given a title rather than just a "Mr". But it's not a big deal, and if you see it differently I'm happy moving it down. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lord Rawlinson" and not "General Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson"? And then, do we know why was he asked to perform the unveiling? Some local connection, or a connection with the Herbert or Wyndham families? Perhaps he was in South Africa with Guy Wyndham during the Boer War?
  • One of your comments caused me to re-read the Western Gazette article more closely. Henry Seymour Rawlinson grew up in East Knoyle. His mother Louisa (née Seymour) was the daughter of Henry Seymour, who owned Knoyle House. There is the local connection. Theramin (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well spotted. I've added this and some more information to the article; he was also friendly with a number of the Wyndhams, including George (whose letters were published after his 1913 death). Incidentally, this perhaps suggests that George Wyndham's son Percy Lyulph Wyndham was the one Rawlinson had in mind when he said that "Among the names recorded on the memorial was that of one who was an intimate friend and aide-de-camp of his own, one whose character and example were such as it would be well for every young man of the present day to follow, and whose loss to his King and the Empire, to his regiment and his family, had been irreparable." --Usernameunique (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. And indeed the London Gazette shows Percy Lyulph Wyndham was seconded from the Coldstream Guards to act as Rawlinson's ADC in 1912. He returned to the 3rd battalion on 5 August 1914, the day after Britain declared war on Germany. He was killed in action little more than a month later, as the years of trench warfare started at the Battle of the Aisne. [3] [4] [5] (This is somewhat irrelevant, but again goes to the social circle and millieu: I had not previously noticed that his mother Sibyl was the widow of the Duke of Westminster's son, and brought with her three step-children when she married George, including the future 2nd Duke; or indeed that Percy's wife was a daughter of Thomas Lister, 4th Baron Ribblesdale, with his own outstanding Sargent painting.) Theramin (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finding that—I had assumed that "aide-de-camp" was being used in a colloquial sense, and it's nice (and interesting) to now fully parse that remark by Rawlinson. I've added it to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The family groups at the unveiling (and commemorated on the memorial) could be grouped and linked more effectively. Two of those who attended the unveiling, Captain Guy Richard Charles Wyndham (redlink) and Olivia Wyndham, were the (second) son and daughter of Guy Wyndham and his first wife Edwina. One of those named on the memorial, Lieutenant George Heremon Wyndham, was the first son from the first marriage: he was killed in action near Ypres in 1915. Another, Percy Lyulph Wyndham, was killed in the First Battle of the Aisne in September 1914: he was the only son of Guy's elder brother George Wyndham, who had himself died in 1913. All this could be mentioned.
  • Good point. I've grouped the families together as you mentioned, and added a few extra sources to define the relationships. The death of George Heremon Wyndham is now mentioned in "Commissioning", since he was the son of the committee chair. I'm not sure Percy Lyulph Wyndham's specific relationship needs to be made clear, however, since he's merely Guy Wyndham's nephew. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Much better, but can I encourage you to answer the question that naturally arises when someone sees that Percy L. Wyndham's name is prominently mentioned below George Wyndham at the bottom of the second list on the "right" column on the memorial (that is, what connection does this Percy Wyndham have to those named, particularly as we have already mentioned one Percy Wyndham, the grandfather?). His death is the reason why Guy (second son) and Richard (second son of the second) are in charge at Clouds.

    There is also the elliptical reference to "the matriarch of the family", meaning Madeline Wyndham (née Campbell). Is there enough to justify an article on her (and so a redlink) or a redirect to her husband Percy? Theramin (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are plenty of sources on Madeline Wyndham, who is now named and red linked. And as a result of our above discussion, Percy Lyulph Wyndham is now discussed in some detail further down. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here's hoping someone takes the bait. She is mentioned but not lined at The Souls and also (perhaps the most bizarre connection of all) at Hope, which is featured, with a quote in a letter to her from George Frederic Watts. Theramin (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed—at this point, there's a wealth of potential branches out of this article. As a member of The Souls—and likely in a position of patronage—her connection with various artists does make a fair amount of sense. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says "five members of the Wyndham family" are commemorated. Who are the other three?
  • Lady Muriel Jex-Blake (née Herbert) was the younger of George Sidney Herbert's two elder sisters (i.e. the second daughter and third child of Beatrix, Dowager Countess of Pembroke). Their father Sidney Herbert, 14th Earl of Pembroke had also died in 1913. And yet Reginald Herbert, 15th Earl of Pembroke did not attend the unveiling...
  • It seems odd, especially given that he served from 1914 to 1919 (obituary). Perhaps they thought the family was already well represented, or perhaps he was tied up. He doesn't seem to have been on some long trip elsewhere, however; he was at his sister's wedding the month before (source) and, the month after, attended the coming-out dance for the daughter of Owen Philipps, 1st Baron Kylsant (source). --Usernameunique (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was Colonel Henry Bouverie? Why was he there? What connection does he have?
  • He's given a number of mentions in the 1920 Western Gazette piece on the memorial's unveiling: "They were indebted very largely to the Seymour Estate for the extensions to the hall and he was very pleased to see that Colonel Henry Bouverie, a Trustee, was present to help him in declaring the hall open. They welcomed his presence and he was sure that the people of East Knoyle would welcome him whenever he came amongst them. (applause). He (Lord Rawlinson) wished he were able to accompany Colonel Bouverie. Matters of duty were calling him away for the next four years, but when he returned he hoped he would find the place as prosperous as it was that day." I've added some information based on this ("The Seymour estate was represented by Colonel Henry Bouverie, a trustee"); there are a number of "Henry Bouveries," however, so absent a source which gives more details and mentions the trusteeship, it would be too speculative to add more. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that is interesting. The Seymours owned Knoyle House, which I think was sited across the road, where the playground is now.[6][7] And it was owned by the General's relatives. See above. In 1920 (and until her death), it was let the Dowager Duchess of Pembroke, but it was owned by Jane, daughter of Alfred Seymour and grand-daughter of Henry Seymour. And then Henry Seymour's daughter, another Jane, married Philip Pleydell-Bouverie. I haven't found a definitive source yet, nothing I can find in the London Gazette to support a colonelcy at this date - there was a Peninsular War officer and governor of Malta, Henry Bouverie: but I think it is likely that our "Colonel" Henry is one of the (Pleydell) Bouverie family - probably Henry Hales Pleydell Bouverie (the banker - the bank Ransom, Bouverie & Co, later Barclay, Bevan, Tritton, Ransom, Bouverie & Co, was one of the major parts of the merged firm that became Barclays Bank - who was named as executor of numerous wills including, one assume, one of the Seymours; and also former major in the West Somerset Yeomanry - in some army lists as "Henry H. P. Bouverie" - also JP, deputy lieutenant and former High Sheriff of Somerset) and not Henry Rivers Pleydell Bouverie. Have you traced other Henry Bouveries that could have attended the unveiling in 1920? Theramin (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks like our man; this article notes that he is one of the trustees. And this means that he was also related (a cousin?) to Rawlinson. (To be finished tomorrow.) --Usernameunique (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, yes, Henry Hales Pleydell Bouverie's mother Jane Seymour, and Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson's mother Louisa Seymour, were sisters, both daughers Henry Seymour, so they were (first) cousins. That is, we have three prominent families of the village - the Wyndhams, the Herberts, and the Seymours. (Another bizarre and tangential link, but there is a distant connection to the Tichborne claimant, through Henry Seymour's illegitimate first daughter). Theramin (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rev. Marshall Winder Lumsden, formerly an army chaplain, was the incumbent at the next village, Hindon, with the parish soon to be joined with Chicklade and Pertwood. Captain Guy Richard Charles Wyndham was the Patron of the Pertwood parish, and about to give up his right of presentation to the living. [8]
  • I am afraid you have misinterpreted the Western Gazette article. Two (not three) clergymen conducted a brief service. Rev. William Neville (son of Frederick Neville (redlink but perhaps notable), and grandson of George Neville-Grenville) was the Rector of East Knoyle from 1912 to 1932. Before that, he was the incumbent at St Mary's, Reading, aka Reading Minster. (See article in Western Gazette, Friday 4 June 1926) (Speculation, I wonder if this brings the connection to Herbert Maryon: did he do work for St Mary's?) (And who was Rev. E. A. Reader? I suspect another local incumbent, but I haven't found a source to support that yet.) A third clergyman, from the Primitive Methodist chapel, read a lesson.
  • I've added some information on William Neville. Among other relatives, it turns out he was brother-in-law to Arthur Bigge, 1st Baron Stamfordham, who was the private secretary to King George V. I'm looking for more information on Reader, although he was in East Knoyle at least as early as 1914 (source), and in 1923, as curate, left to become vicar of Bradpole in 1923 (source). As for Maryon, I don't know of anything he did for St. Mary's, although he certainly made some works for churches. A more likely scenario, I think, is described above—Maryon was in the same social circles of various people who designed war memorials, and it's possible he obtained the commission through such connections. But I've spent a lot of time researching Maryon without finding anything definite. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third clergyman was Frank Edge Yeomans (bio), minister of Mere. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, the curate. The current text - "The rector, Rev. William Neville and Rev. E. A. Reader, the curate, … " - reads a little strangely. Perhaps "The rector and curate – Rev. William Neville and Rev. E. A. Reader – …"

    It is nice to see the additional content going in, but it will need cold re-reading to make sure it is integrated nicely. When you are done, I'd encourage those who have already supported to go back and take another look. "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", as they say. Theramin (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make of it what you will, but there is more that can and should be said. Theramin (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Theramin. I've addressed the "small stuff," and will take a few days to address the others. Interesting questions—I appreciate you digging in and finding areas to explore. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't encourage me :) I am risking going off at tangents here, but I think we need a little more background to set the scene. See some sources below.

  • So, the Wyndham family patriarch Percy had died in 1911, and his wife Madeline (née Campbell) in 1920. Within a space of three years, the grandfather Percy and the grandmother Madeline, their first son George and his only son Percy, all died. Guy's wife Edwina also died in 1919, and his own eldest son George in the war, leaving Richard. The death duties must have been punishing. It seems Richard inherited Clouds, skipping a generation (and explaining why he had the advowson at Pettswood). And then there is the Grade II listed memorial enclosure by Detmar Blow in the burial ground nearby.[10]
  • Ah, I see the five Wyndham cousins are all commemorated in the church, but the other three are not mentioned at this memorial. For the record, the three others are Edward Wyndham Tennant (son of Guy's eldest sister, Pamela Wyndham and Edward Tennant, 1st Baron Glenconner), and Hugo Charteris (more than just a cricketer) and Yvo Charteris (two sons of Guy's youngest sister Mary Constance Wyndham and Hugo Charteris, 11th Earl of Wemyss). The mothers are two of the Wyndham Sisters, which tells its own story (and the German article on the painting is outstanding - and here is their mother).
  • To get a sense of the social circle, consider that Lord Glenconner's brother Harold Tennant was Under-Secretary of State for War. And the Charteris's sister Cynthia married Herbert Asquith, son of the Prime Minister. And then Herbert Asquith's brother Raymond Asquith was married to Katharine Horner, sister of Edward Horner, whose extraordinary memorial is already featured. You probably need a link to The Souls and The Coterie.
  • If you need sources for the five grandchildren, and the social context, and the effects of the war, here you are: [11] [12] [13] [14]
  • I see you have already linked to the "Shaftesbury Remembers" website already for the Jolliffe brothers, so here are some others for the Wyndham cousins: [15] [16]
  • On the location, we probably ought to mention that it is about 100m east of St Mary's Church, on a green which was beside the main road from Warminster to Poole (formerly the A350 road, but the village was bypassed in 1995).

There is an interesting vignette here, over and above a simple stone cross unveiled on a village green in 1920, perhaps distilled down to an extra paragraph or two. Theramin (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, this is all getting a bit long, and probably would be better thrashed out on the article's talk page. Let me know if you'd rather deal with it there, outside the heat of a FAC. For what it is worth, I think it is making the article stronger and more interesting. Theramin (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theramin, no need to apologize at all! Parsing through details such as these and making sense of them is perhaps the thing that I find most fun on here. It's enjoyable to go through a review with someone who is similarly interested—not to mention so proficient at tracking down and tying together details that I had missed. So by all means keep adding your thoughts, and I will continue working through the list. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This feels more like article development than review, but if the coordinators are happy, I am happy. Theramin (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having read some of the other comments above, I see KJP1 suggesting adding more on the families involved from the history of Clouds, particularly the Wyndhams, so it is not just me.

On the sources, I don't know how much is still taken from the village newsletters etc., but from spot-checks, what is there looks reliable enough to me. For example, here are the CWGC listings for the three Jolliffe brothers Victor, killed 12 March 1915, aged 17, Fred, killed 18 May 1915 aged 18, Edwin, killed 21 October 1918, aged 22 (all sons of William G[eorge] and Caroline M[ary] Jolliffe, of The Green, East Knoyle, Salisbury; two in the Wiltshire Regiment, one in the Somerset Light Infantry). Sobering to consider them sending these three young sons off (17! damn) and so nearly getting one of them back. Theramin (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

This nom has been open a long time and there have been strong, thoughtful arguments on both sides regarding the quality of the sources. Plainly we don't have consensus as yet so just going on what's here I really couldn't see myself promoting this. That said, the nom has responded to points raised by Ealdgyth and Buidhe and I'd like them to come back on those before a final decision. That would still leave Gog's concerns, so I don't know if we'll resolve everything but I'm prepared to leave this open a bit longer to see -- it might incidentally give Theramin a chance to finish their review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the smaller issues I raised have been fixed, I remain opposed based on the sourcing. Much of it is primary - there is very little secondary coverage, much less high quality secondary sourcing. I recognize that there is some variety of opinion on what/how much/etc secondary sourcing is required and the proper use of primary sourcing, and that my oppose is not as easy to quantify like prose-quality. I remain concerned that what we have with this article is actually not an encyclopedia entry like we are supposed to be writing, but a historical research article ... albeit an excellent one. If the coords choose to ignore my oppose, I won't be pleased but I won't throw a stink either, but I must oppose because I do not think this excellently written article is an example of Wikipedia's best work because it isn't a summation of secondary sources, but rather a secondary source - a historical research article - itself. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Ealdgyth's comment, I just don't see enough secondary sourcing on this subject to write a FA quality article. buidhe 00:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to everyone who's participated in this review. At the very least, this can be held up as a standard for collegial disagreement in such reviews. I think we've had all the time we should take to try and resolve critical comments, and unfortunately that hasn't occurred, so I'm going to archive it. I don't know if the concerns can be resolved over time and the article re-nominated in the future, but I'd hope so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, it is surprising to see the nomination archived a mere half hour after the last reviewer commented. What is more disappointing, however, is that besides the opinions of a vocal few, there appears to be a consensus supporting this article's promotion. Consensus "does not mean unanimity"; rather, it "involve[s] an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns". Ealdgyth has not disputed the fact that her interpretation of what it means for a source to be "high quality" is inconsistent with the featured-article criteria—let alone her prior statements. And 23 hours before switching gears, Buidhe wrote that her comments could be resolved by removing three sentences from the article. Such concerns are by turns irrelevant and transitory; it is hard to see how they are legitimate. --Usernameunique (talk)
Hi, half an hour after the last reviewer commented is one way of looking at it, nine-and-a-half weeks after the first reviewer commented is another. I also don't think the close should be such a surprise given how I signalled my reading of things a fortnight ago. Certainly consensus doesn't mean unanimity, but this isn't a case of a lone voice of opposition; those voicing their concerns are as experienced and reasonable as those voicing support, and if their comments can't be resolved then regrettably we don't have consensus to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN and I'm pleased to see it's been considerably enhanced as a result of some of the preceding diligent reviews. While the concerns over sourcing may have some merit, I would like a more pragmatic approach to the issue, i.e. is there any reason to cast any doubt on what they may be verifying? I'm content that sourcing here is just about adequate, and the article is a fine addition to FA. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/East_Knoyle_War_Memorial/archive1&oldid=962499661"