Wikipedia:Peer review/Nelson's Pillar/archive1

Nelson's Pillar

For more than 150 years the Nelson Pillar loomed over Dublin, remaining long after British rule in Ireland became a thing of the past. Both loved and resented (more the latter, perhaps), it survived numerous schemes to move it, replace it, destroy it – until one night in March 1966 someone decided enough was enough. It's an odd story, involving a mixture of civic pride, stubborn bureacracy, sentiment and frustration. Among the millions who climbed the 168 steps to the top was a diminutive juvenile Boulton (how I remember those steps). Anyhow, here's the full story. Thanks to User:Carcharoth, for a number of suggestions and for his careful checking of the text. I look forward to some useful critical comments from the wider community.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Carcharoth

Some thoughts on the article as it currently stands (as Brian notes, I have already raised various points on the article talk page, so will try and keep these ones succinct and to the point):

• The opening sentence after the lead section might benefit from making clearer that the area of Dublin being talked about in the opening section is where the Pillar would one day stand. The wording "The location where the Nelson Pillar would eventually stand" doesn't appear until the start of the second paragraph.

• Personally I don't see an issue here. The first paragraph morphs from "Dublin north of the river" to the origin and development of Sackville Street, with a little bit of political history. I feel this is necessary background, but if you want to suggest an alternative wording, feel free to do so. Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  The problem is with the transition from the lead to the main body of the article. Readers unfamiliar with the topic (and unfamiliar with Dublin), may find the opening sentence of the background section jarring. What the reader who is unfamiliar with the topic knows from the lead is that the Pillar was built in the early 19th century in a street in Dublin that is now called O'Connell Street and was originally called Sackville Street. Why are they then being told about the redevelopment of Dublin north of the River Liffey (not mentioned earlier) and being taken back to the early 18th century? I would focus on Sackville Street (mentioned in the lead) and take it from there. Something like:

  Sackville Street, where the Nelson Pillar would be erected, was created as part of the redevelopment of Dublin north of the River Liffey, a process that began early in the 18th century, largely through the enterprise of the property speculator Luke Gardiner.

  And maybe then change the first sentence of the second paragraph to something like:

  The first monument in Sackville Street arrived in 1759, erected on the future site of the Pillar.

  Does that work? I also made this change, which I presume is correct. Carcharoth (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• The first mention of Dennis Campbell Kennedy should give his function - would "journalist and author" cover it? Maybe "writer"?

• Done slightly differently. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• The first two sentences of the 'Inception, design and construction' section contain repetition of 'public' and 'invited'.

• I've simplified the wording and merged the first two sentences Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• The words plinth (7) and pedestal (4) get used interchangeably (though to be fair, the first use of both is together, with plinth given as an alternative to pedestal). Even so, this has the potential to confuse those who might think these are different things. In this context, they are referring to the same thing, the block of stone on which the column is resting. If there is a desire for more architectural terms, the bit at the top of the column is apparently the abacus.

• On the plinth/pedestal thing, Wilkins's design envisaged a much smaller and delicate "plinth", which was replaced in the final design by Johnson's large block or "pedestal". I've organised it now so that "plinth" is now reserved for Wilkins's version, otherwise it's "pedestal". Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• The main picture is nice, but might be improved by restoration or cleaning. I have asked about this and it might be possible to find someone willing to help with this.
• This bit from the Cox quote might benefit from an explanatory note, if that is possible: "The statue of Nelson records the glory of a mistress and the transformation of our senate into a discount office". Not sure what is being alluded to there. What does he mean by 'mistress' and 'discount office'?

• "Mistress" is an allusion to Nelson's well-known liaison with Emma Hamilton (see also "one-handled adulterer"). By "discount office" Cox is fairly clearly referring to Dublin's loss of status, from a seat of government to a mere commercial city. I think we have to leave it to readers to make this interpretation. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• I uploaded a picture of Sackville Street in the 1750s as it looked before the column was there. It could be considered for use in this article if so desired: File:Sackville St and Gardiner's Mall in the 1750s by Oliver Grace.jpg (the quality is not great though).

• Worth keeping in mind but probably not necessary at this point. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• I also uploaded and/or cropped existing images to show three architectural details. I'm presenting them here in a gallery. I know galleries are tricky to make work and there needs to be a good reason to use them, but here I think it is justified:

• 
  The plinth with carved sarcophagus in 1837
• 
  1894 design for the new entrance porch
• 
  Detail of the statue and viewing platform

You get five architectural and sculptural features shown in this gallery: the carved sarcophagus that was later removed; the 1894 porch and railings; a close-up of an inscription; the statue of Nelson; and the viewing platform. It might then be worth adding a note pointing out one of the major later changes to the Pillar, namely the addition of the rather ugly 'cage' around the viewing platform (this was added in the 1950s to prevent suicides).

• These are excellent images and it would be nice to use them, but within the text rather than as a gallery. The first would make a good replacement for the Bartlett image which isn't that great; the second would fit easily in the same section, and there is room in the next section for the third – a mention of the "suicide" factor in the text would be appropriate, too. I'll do some experimental placing and see how it looks. The trouble with galleries is that (a) they are messy, particularly with captions, and (b) like cultural reference sections they tend to invite additions. So in my view they are best avoided. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  Understood (though the Bartlett image does show well the 'focal point' in "wastes of pavements"). On galleries in general, they are less messy than they used to be (and image layout is rather being left behind by the increasing viewing of Wikipedia articles on mobile platforms anyway). Are you familiar with articles that make good use of galleries? (If you want to discuss galleries further, probably best done outside of this review.) If you are able to make use of these images within the text, that would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Two of the post-1923 images used in the article may be problematic in terms of licensing. The main image is said to be dated circa 1927, but the original source says 'between ca. 1900-1939'. I don't know how that got narrowed down to 1927. The conditions given at the National Library of Ireland Flickr Commons page don't really seem to be free enough and others may object to this image further down the line (this one is from the Eason Collection). Ditto for the 1966 image of the bombed Pillar which is by a photographer called Michael S. Walker - are we sure he has released his images by giving them to the National Library of Ireland? If not, that could be used here under fair use.

• Yes, these images warrant further investigation from a licencing viewpoint and I am seeking further advice. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  I hope the advice you get helps. I work with images a lot, both on and off Wikipedia, so feel free to ask if you need anything further here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• The 'Investigations' section ends with a rather lonely two-sentence paragaph - is this intentional? Also, the 'brother' in that second sentence, is that Christle's brother or Sutcliffe's brother. I assume the former, but it could be read as the latter.

• Not sure how to clarify it was Christle's brother, other than "apart from Christle and Christle's brother" which reads dreadfully. Can you suggest anything better – otherwise I'd rather leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  Agree about the brother bit. That was a bit nit-picky. What about the lonely two-sentence paragraph? Is that also nit-picky? I've never quite understood when it is acceptable to have short punchy paragraphs like that. Carcharoth (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• The ending of the article is a bit abrupt, with the reader left trying to work out what Clarke meant by the lines quoted from his poem. Is there not a better way to end the article? Admittedly, I can't think of anything better, so maybe it is best left like that. It does feel vaguely unsatisfying, though. Maybe finish with a small gallery of images (as suggested above)?

• I think Clarke's meaning is generally clear, insofar as poetic allegory ever is. Could swap places with the MacNeice for a possibly more decisive ending, although it's rather earlier. I will ponder on this. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Finally, there are four sources that could be used to add a couple of sentences here and there (even if only in footnotes). I know Brian has put a huge amount of work into summarising a long history and is reluctant to go into too much extra detail, so I limited myself to these four for consideration:
  • (1) The 1821 visit to Dublin of George IV is covered here: "The King made his formal entrance into the city via Sackville (now O'Connell) Street at the head of 200 carriages, the Royal flag flapping atop of Nelson's Pillar as he passed."
  • (2) The Hansard record of the Second Reading of the 1891 Nelson's Pillar (Dublin) Bill could be used as an additional source for existing text, or as an external link for further reading.
  • (3) There is substantial discussion of Nelson's Pillar and the Wellington Monument in 'Deification in the early century', which is chapter 1 of Nineteenth-century Irish Sculpture (2010) by Paula Murphy.
  • (4) The bar for additions to the cultural references section should be high. I think an earlier suggestion I made does now qualify. Irish poet Richard Murphy wrote a poem titled 'Nelson's Pillar' (The Price of Stone, 1985). Murphy talked about the poem's themes during an interview in 2001 available here (see page 151).

    On these points:

    • George V's visit is not in my view worth adding text for.
    • I don't think the 1891 Bill is not sufficiently significant in the story to warrant a second reference or an external link
    • I've glanced at the Paula Murphy material, and can't see anything I would particularly wish to add. Do you have any specific material in mind?
    • Cultural ref sections are dangerous temptations to all and sundry to add their favourite bits of poem, song etc. My worry is: if Richard Murphy, why not others? The ones we have are safely classic and dead, and I'm anxious not to create what might become an open-ended section.

      • I suggested the visit of George IV specifically because Queen Victoria's visits were mentioned and King George IV paraded down Sackville Street past the monument. The presence of a flag on Nelson's Pillar for that visit is similar to that which you mention for the 1905 Trafalgar centenary. There are large periods of the 157-year history that go unremarked with nothing said. If anyone asks for more, this would be a possibility I think.
      • The 1891 Bill, I agree that no more needs to be said in the article, but am surprised that you are rejecting using it as a reference or an external link (are you really dead set against such small additions?).
      • The Murphy material I suggest needs more than a glance - it is an impeccable academic source by someone whose specialities include 19th-century Irish sculpture (see here). She speaks on the topic with more authority than Kennedy or Fallon. In general, a weakness of the article is a lack of top-notch academic sources on architectural or art (sculptural) history. It would strengthen the article to use Paula Murphy's work as a reference.
      • On cultural references, I already said why Richard Murphy's poem warrants a mention - his work is wholly about the Pillar (not a throwaway reference within a poem or a book, but a poem titled after and about the Pillar). One addition does not an open-ended section make. There are two examples of cultural references on the article talk page I specifically did not bring here because I agreed with you that they did not warrant inclusion. I brought Murphy here because I found that interview where he talks about the poem.

      I won't press these points further, because the article is largely your work, but I do hope you will listen to arguments I have put forth here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Overall, the article is a really nice and balanced summary of a fascinating story. Hopefully the suggestions above, and the images I found and uploaded, will help. Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks indeed. I am continuing to work on some of the points you've raised (I've also slightly reconfigured my answers so that they fall in the right places. Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. I have responded inline above. I will raise one further issue on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Just a few things:

• "Dublin Corporation" I'd link this.
• "in the immediate euphoria following Nelson's victory and death" Two things. "Immediate" may add nothing and I might try to avoid the suggestion that the death caused the euphoria, given the subsequent fraught relationship.
• "The position in the city centre of a monument to an archetypal English rather than Irish hero " maybe "That a prominent monument in the city centre honoured an English, rather than an Irish hero" or some such.
• " French and Spanish Navies" possibly lower case for navies
• "At the height of the battle, Nelson, aboard his flagship HMS Victory, was mortally wounded; when he died later that day, victory was assured." There is a hint that the death caused the victory. If I can butt into the tales of good King George's glorious days, I might replace "when" with "by the time".
• "Nelson had been hailed in the streets of Dublin seven years earlier, after the Battle of the Nile, when on the many banners hung in his honour he was depicted defending the Harp and Crown, the respective symbols of Ireland and Britain." I might make the final phrase "representing Ireland and Britain". I have the impression the prose is getting a bit bogged down here.

• I have trimmed this. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Kennedy quote is a little muddled. Are you saying that the Irish would have regarded Nelson as a hero at that time or not?

• I've replaced Kennedy's slightly muddled wording with a paraphrase which I hope makes things clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• "the "Second Arthur Guinness", son of the brewery founder." I would simply say "Arthur Guinness, son of the brewery founder" with appropriate pipe.
• "and from interested organisations" I would cut.
• "the Lord Lieutenant" possibly pipe to the incumbent.

• Unfortunately there was a change of lieutenancy during the period, and I've no idea which of the two this refers to. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Was a prize offered for the winning entry or was it just honour and glory?

• Just professional prestige as far as I can see, but I'll double-check. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Did the architect chosen not get paid for the work? Surely that is the 'prize' for winning an architectural competition (you win the commission to do the work and part of the costs submitted will presumably include the architect's fees), or were things done differently then? Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Are sketches of the original version extant? Surely they would be PD.

• I'll follow this up. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• In the quote box, I would move the words beginning "wording" to the foot and relegate Mr Kennedy to the citation. Is the quote box intended to reproduce the original formatting of the text? If not, I would make it a bit wider.
• " a quantity of dynamite was placed at its foot" I might say "base" rather than "foot" so that no one would unbidden think that it was Nelson's foot.
• "80 per cent of the Corporation's members" I might say "80 per cent of the populace" unless I am missing some nuance.
• "lack of willingness" I would say "unwillingness"
• "the official 50th anniversary celebrations of the Rising.[86]In the first official statement" There's a missing space between the sentences (I'm doing this offline). Also official/official.
• "the lettering on the pedestal should be preserved;" Although you refer to this in footnote 8, I'm not certain what this lettering is, unless it is that on the plinth.

• There has been some confusion arising my interchanging of the terms "plinth" and "pedestal". I've largely abandoned the earlier term except in relation to Wilkins's superseded design, so there should be no confusion now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting piece on a subject I had heard of but knew too little about. Well done indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I've only replied when an explanation is called for, otherwise your suggestions have been taken up. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

Lede

• Is it worth mentioning the district of Dublin it is in?

• We mention the street, Dublin's principal thoroughfare, which should be enough - if you were writing about London's Oxford Street you probably wouldn't think to say it was in Westminster. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• "damaged by a bomb planted by Irish republicans. The remnant of the Pillar was subsequently destroyed by the Irish Army." link army? You do later link the IRA.
• I see you've linked the Free State and the Republic of Ireland in the article body but not the lede.

Background

• "The redevelopment of Dublin north of the River Liffey " , roughly which area is this today?

• see point above

• Is it worth linking St Patrick's Day? I'm not particularly bothered either way!
• "At the height of the battle, Nelson, aboard his flagship HMS Victory, was mortally wounded; when he died later that day, victory was assured.[9]" -can this be reworded to avoid so many commas?
• "The rich mercantile classes had particular reason to be grateful for a victory that restored the freedom of the high seas and removed the threat of a French invasion,[12] but many of the city's population had a direct personal involvement with the battle: up to one-third of the sailors in Nelson's fleet were from Ireland, including around 400 from Dublin itself" -a little long, can it be altered a little?
• "It contained four of the city's Westminster MPs, alongside other city notables including the "Second Arthur Guinness", son of the brewery founder." -is the son of or just son preferred here. It's probably intentional on your part.

• This has been changed per Wehwalt's cmt Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

History

• "In an early (1818) history of the city of Dublin" -is it worth mentioning the book title or does it not reflect that it covers the early history? It's just you have gone to the trouble to mention the publication date so you could say something like "in xxx (1818), which documents the early history of Dublin",

• The book's title is very long: History of the City of Dublin from the Earliest Accounts to the Present time is the short form. I think we can sparev readers that and let the present text stand. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• "poster of Kevin Barry, a Dublin Irish Republican Army (IRA) volunteer executed by the British during the War of Independence. A crowd gathered below, and began to sing the Irish rebel song "Kevin Barry"" -perhaps pipe the latter to "in his name" or something to avoid repetition of the name.

• We could pipe "named after him" but that's a very wikipedia-ish way of dealing with it. Sometimes it's better I think to accept the repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "claimed that he had placed the bomb which detonated in the Pillar on 8 March 1966" -do you really need to cite the full date again?
• "Following his revelations, Sutcliffe was questioned by the police but was not charged. " -were any formal reasons given for why he wasn't charged? I mean it is sort of obvious, but planting a bomb in a public place is really quite a serious thing!

• Well, it was 44 years on, and there was no forensic or corroborative evidence. The sources don't specifically say why the police didn't take further action against Sutcliffe, but the implication is that in the circumstances conviction would have been impossible. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Cultural references

• " a temporary rash of popular songs, " -seems an odd description but probably accurate in comparing it to a "rash".

Thanks for all the above contributions. I've been preoccupied for the last couple of days, but I'll deal with these issues tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries, most are nitpicks which I'm not overly bothered either way about so if you don't agree on any/many I won't be offended on this one hehe! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review - I've replied where necessary, otherwise I've adopted your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

• 'Having served in the British Army as an IRA spy in the 1950s' - problematic

• It's in the published sources – but I can see the possible problem so I've removed this wording. I'm not seeking to court controversy. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• but provoked aesthetic and political controversy from the outset' - I'm not seeing much more re aesthetic in the article body, suggest removing the word

• In the first para of the 1809–1916 section criticisms incluse "unsightly", "ponderous" and "clumsy". Later in the same section it's described as an "unsightly s tructure" and later on as "scruffy". I think that justifies keeping the word. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• 'this proliferation as an act of defiance towards the British Government' - 'acts' surely

• The grammarian in me says "proliferation" is a singular mass noun, therefore "an act" is correct. The logician in me says that proliferation means numerous acts, therefore "acts" is correct. The pragmatist in me says reword the thing, which I have done. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• when Queen Victoria visited the city in 1849, then two sentences later "the Queen" is visiting in 1953.

• I hope it says 1853, not 1953 when she would have been 134. Yes, she visited in 1849 and again in 1853, but I saw no need to name her twice. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Was the biggest related hit single of 1966 the Dubliners tune?

• The biggest hit was likely the 8-week chart-topper "Up went Nelson", mentioned earlier. The Dubliners were probably the best known group that recorded a Nelson song, hence their mention. I'm against this section becoming a listing of every damned song inspired by the event, however fleeting its fame, but that will probably happen over time, alas. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Have made various edits, mostly preferences; any can be reversed, you respected in these quarters.

• Mostly I've no quarrel with your edits. In a few cases where I think the original is preferable I will change back, but on the whole fine, a job well done. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thats it for now. It is my great pleasure to see the article at this advanced stage. This is a very balanced and honest treament; thanks and kudos for taking on a diffucult centuary. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments and efforts, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Precious little from me. I've tinkered very slightly, but please check my changes. Otherwise all I can offer are these few tiny points:

• "fundraising" - I forget whether you are an OED man or a Chambers aficionado. If the former you'll want to hyphenate the word; if the latter you won't.
• "facade" - As William Walton's vicar on Wikipedia I hereby put in a plea for the word to have its cedilla here.
• "The following year the Dublin Metropolitan Police ... demanded legislation to allow the Pillar's removal..." - rouses the reader's (this reader's, at any rate) curiosity: why were the constabulary interesting themselves in the matter?

• The source doesn't give a reason, but at a guess I would say traffic grounds (which Kennedy mentions earlier on the page). Can't be sure though. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• lighthearted" - both the OED and Chambers hyphenate this.
• refs 104 and 92 are side by side in the wrong order in the second para of Investigations.

That's my lot. A splendid read. Tim riley talk 23:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I've done the little fixes. Thanks for your review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

I've made a series of very minor changes—mostly around MoS strictures, etc—which can be seen here. Aside from that, it's an excellent and polished work, ready for the scrutiny of FAC. Two minor points to consider:

• "which the city authorities found impossible to act within." should possibly be "within which the city authorities found impossible to act."
• FN2: "Cambridge University colleges" should be "colleges of the University of Cambridge".

That's it: just those trifles come to my eye in an excellent article. Many thanks – – SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Both done; thanks for spotting them and doing other minor fixes. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)