Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Duffield Memorial/archive1

Duffield Memorial

 * Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Relatively inconspicuous, somewhat overgrown, and more than a hundred years old, the Duffield Memorial sits in the yard of a church nearly a millennium older. Overshadowed as it is, however, the memorial tells an interesting story. An early work by Herbert Maryon, it commemorates members of a prominent local family. At the time, it was considered "quite unique, at any rate in this neighbourhood", and even now, it is an "unusual example of Art Nouveau design in metal work".

This article gives a thorough overview of the memorial and the surrounding context. It was thoroughly reviewed in March by ; since then, was able to take photos, and I've given the article another review. The article is at, or close to, the best possible version of itself, and so is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * "roles as director and chairman of a range of businesses, including the Reliance Life Assurance Company, the London Board of the Norwich Union, the Chelmsford and Braintree Gas Companies, and the Chelmsford and Blackwater Navigation Company" He was director AND chairman of each of this, or should it be "or"?
 * Both, except for the second position where the source notes him as chairman but doesn't mention director. I've reworded it accordingly. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1918[footnotes]) Don't footnotes usually follow punctuation except in the case of a long dash?
 * Normally yes. In sentences like this, however, with parenthetical about individual people, I tend to keep the citations in each parenthetical, so it is clear which are about whom. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is William Bartleet Duffield buried? France? Here? Do we know who ordered the monument and also had the second plaque affixed? Someone presumably paid. Do we know how much?
 * It's unclear. Another look at newspaper articles from the time, however, found an article about his probate that discusses leaving some of his estate to his niece, along with £100 for "a memento". That probably answers the question of who paid for it, and gives an idea of cost. (Although according to the Bank of England, that £100 is worth some £4,700 today—presumably there was some left over after the plaque.) I’ve added this to the article (in a footnote, since it's not definitive). Meanwhile, even a turn through the primary sources doesn't address where he was buried. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there anything that can be said about the drive to list the memorial?
 * Unfortunately no. I sent emails to both Historic England and the church when writing the email, but did't get a reply from either. I'll follow up, but am not optimistic. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support with reservations on the issue of comprehensiveness, per my queries above. I will continue to monitor and hopefully I can make this a full support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on KJP1's comments, I'm going to withdraw my reservations, leaving my support. Very well done with what was available. Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

 * William Ward Duffield is a red link to W. W. Duffield, but other members of the family who are mentioned are left unlinked. Is there some reason to believe William Ward in particular is notable enough that he might merit an article in the future?
 * There are a number of articles on him and A. S. Duffield—the two red links in the article—that indicate that they clear the notability threshold. That might be true for others also, but those ones seemed clear when looking up the people mentioned in the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The memorial covers the grave. Is this a single grave in which Marianne, William Ward, and William Bartleet are all buried?
 * Yes, at least as to the first two. Per a newspaper article on W. W. Duffield's burial, "the interment [was] in the grave where the remains already rested of the late Mrs. Duffield", and per a 1912 article on the memorial, it was "erected … over the grave of Mr. and Mrs. Duffield". As noted above, however, it's unclear whether William Bartleet Duffield was also buried there, or simply commemorated there. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Starting with The memorial covers the grave... There's three sentences in a row of the form "fact 1 and fact 2", which sounds stilted. Maybe something like "The Art Nouveau memorial, comprised of edging and a vertical cross, covers the grave.  The edging consists of riveted sections of copper alloy sheet metal which follow the rectangular perimeter of the plot, connected by short pillars at each corner.  The cross is of the celtic wheel variety, decorated in relief with a leaflike motif."  Well, you get the idea.  Longer sentences will flow better, and try not to repeat the same sentence structure over and over.  Also try to avoid repeated words, such as in "The cross is a Celtic wheel cross".
 * Reworded, how does it read now? --Usernameunique (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Works of Herbert Maryon says the memorial is "Bronze", this article says it's a copper alloy. Bronze is indeed a copper alloy, but why not just call it bronze here?
 * Just to clarify, I see that the source used calls it "copper alloy", but it's worth exploring why Works of Herbert Maryon calls it "bronze" and reconcile the differences.
 * Changed to bronze. The reason for the discrepancy is that the 1912 articles say bronze, whereas Historic England says copper alloy. I think we're safe relying on the latter. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Newspapers at the time termed the memorial "very fine" and "quite unique" for the area,[1][2] and in 2022 it was designated a Grade II listed building. this is an odd juxtaposition of things that happened 100 years ago and something that happened recently. For the lead, I'd mention the Grade II listing and leave out the minor newspaper quotes.


 * The article is quite short (DYK check says 5979 readable prose). MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests one or two paragraphs for under 15k. and this is 1/3 of that, so I'd say trim the lead to about half its current length, covering the most important facts from the main body.  For example, I'd note that it's Grade II listed, but leave all the details for later.

The Duffields

 * William Ward Duffield was born on 25 November 1820 to James Duffield, I assume James had the assistance of his wife in this. Do we know her name or anything about her?
 * Somewhat surprisingly, there's very little information on either James Duffield or his presumed wife. The father is likely the Mr. James Duffield who died in 1830, leaving "a widow and large family to bewail", but it's not definitive, and articles about the family don't seem to mention the mother. There are also mentions of a James Duffield and Joanna Ward Duffield (buried in the same churchyard as the Duffield Memorial) but, again, it's supposition based on primary sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * He went on to become a successful solicitor, who is "He"? William Ward or James?
 * William, clarified. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * including as clerk Drop the "as".
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * His private positions included a number of roles, drop the "a number of roles", just tell us what they were. As before, in and as chairman, no need for "as".  You can "Be X" or "Serve as X", but don't mix the idioms.
 * Done, and generally tightened up that sentence. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Duffield married Marianne Bartleet, there's a lot of Duffields being discussed; be explicit about which one you're talking about in this sentence.
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * three surviving children: William Bartleet Duffield (1861–1918[8][9][10]), Arthur Stewart Duffield (1867–1930[11][12]), and Florence Marion Duffield No need to keep saying "Duffield".  I'd write this as "three surviving children: William Bartleet (1861–1918[8][9][10]), Arthur Stewart (1867–1930[11][12]), and Florence Marion".  I suppose we can infer gender from their first names, but that can sometimes be tricky, so perhaps " sons William Bartleet (...) and Arthur Stewart (...), and daughter Florence Marion"?
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Herbert Maryon

 * It's good to give some explanation of who this guy is beyond "he designed the thing", but this level of detail into Maryon's resume seems excessive. Are there some parts of his prior experience which would be particularly relevant to gaining the skills needed for this design?
 * I thought for some time about how to possibly refocus this section, but I don't think there are many viable options. The sources about Maryon's early life say what he did and what he made, but don't focus on his style of work—the type of information that might be worth expounding upon in an article on one of his works. As it is, however, the sentence is only one six-sentence paragraph. It packs a lot in, but, as his long article goes to show, there's a lot to pack in. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Description

 * 75 metres (246 ft) per MOS:UNCERTAINTY, you can't convert a measurement with two significant figures into one with three. It should be "75 metres (250 ft).  I believe convert has a parameter to control that.
 * Good point, done. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As above, saying "bronze" rather than "copper alloy" would seem to make more sense, unless there's some good reason not to do so. In which case, maybe Works of Herbert Maryon needs fixing :-)
 * Fixed as per above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The cross ... features a Celtic wheel cross avoid repetition of "cross".
 * Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * a medallion, now removed... Do we know why or when it was removed?
 * No, unfortunately, nor have I been able to find any photos of the memorial from before the removal. There was some discussion of this at the GAN review. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Two copper plaques are riveted ... The west-facing plaque Avoid repeating "plaque". Perhaps "... the west-facing one"?
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

History

 * The organisation cited historic interest, architectural interest avoid repetition of "interest".
 * Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Historic England termed the memorial "an unusual example of churchyard memorial design that is also memorial to prominent local citizen William Ward Duffield and his son you can't do anything about HE's repetition of "memorial", but at least don't compound it with another one of your own :-)
 * Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Gallery
I'm not sure this section adds anything. The first image ("Plaque on the front of the Duffield Memorial's pedestal") could be incorporated into the main body, and "St. Mary's churchyard (Duffield Memorial not visible)" doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the memorial, since it's not visible in the photo.
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

General organization
I'm a little concerned that as much space is given to peripheral topics (the entire Background section) as is to the main topic. In particular (as I noted above), I think the Herbert Maryon section could be trimmed considerably. I'd also move the Description section up closer to the top of the article, since that's the main topic.
 * The only way to move up the "Description" section would be to place it above the "Background" section, which would be difficult; the point of the background is to lay the context for the piece, so we know who is being memorialized, and who is making the work. As to the length of the comparative sections, meanwhile, we're somewhat constrained by the sources. The lives of the Duffields and Maryon are sourced in detail, while we have less to go on with the memorial. But I think this is balanced out by the way in which the background section remains high level, while the sections on the memorial and its history go into scrupulous detail. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed comment,. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

GWL
Interesting article. I'll take a look at what I see so far, then take other editors' comments for consideration after my comments are resolved.  Gerald WL  08:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments,. I believe I've addressed everything above, with a single exception—for the Latin, let's give it a day or two to see if I can get the source, otherwise I'll use the website you found. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'll wait until you've reached a conclusion on the source. Also additional comment, should there be a hatnote to Duffield War Memorial?
 * Thanks, . Added a line cited to the book, and added a hat note as suggested. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest putting just the page where the translation is present; you don't want people looking for 10ish pages just to get to that point :")  Gerald WL  07:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, each page cited actually contains the English translation, just under a different denomination. The more important point that's being conveyed, I think, is the ubiquity of that line. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support -- Gerald WL  03:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
Enjoyed this article at GAN, and not much to add here, certainly nothing to stand in the way of my Support. KJP1 (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "a Grade II listed building, noting its "unusual" style of churchyard memorial and Art Nouveau metal work" - for me this reads a little awkwardly. Could the "of churchyard memorial" be dropped without loss?
 * Now: In 2022, Historic England designated the work a Grade II listed building, noting its "unusual" design. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Background: The Duffields
 * "become a successful solicitor, founding the Chelmsford-based firm Duffield and Son, and the London-based firm Duffield, Bruty and Co." - perhaps, to avoid the duplication of "firm", "become a successful solicitor, founding two law firms, Duffield and Son in Chelmsford and Duffield, Bruty and Co. in London."?
 * Went with almost exactly that: William Duffield went on to become a successful solicitor, founding two firms: Duffield and Son, in Chelmsford, and Duffield, Bruty and Co., in London. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Herbert Maryon
 * Noting the comment above re. length, personally I don't find the detail on Maryon excessive. It's a meaty paragraph, to be sure, but it is only a paragraph. However, if trimming was wanted, the last sentence could be compressed; "A second career as a conservator at the British Museum saw him work on the Sutton Hoo ship-burial, for which he was awarded the Order of the British Empire."
 * I've tried to shorten it a little bit. (See also my response to RoySmith's comments.) I've left the final sentence as is, however, lest it make it seem as if his nearly two-decade stint at the BM involved only Sutton Hoo. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comprehensiveness
 * Noting the very fair point on comprehensiveness, I think the nominator has done the best job that can be done with the sources available. I agree there are unanswered questions; "why Maryon?" / "what happened to the medallion?" etc., but this is a recurring issue when trying to write about "minor" buildings/structures. Personally, I think it meets 1(b) and (c), in that it says all that can be said, drawing on all the available sourcing.
 * Thanks much, . I am pleased to say that we have finally tracked down the Maryon–Duffield connection: The grandson of Walter Duffield made his way back to England, and was a professor at Reading at the same time as Maryon. Discovered this quite randomly—searched my email for "Duffield" looking for one thing, but instead up popped this letter from H. Maryon to Duffield regarding lathes, a scan of which the Australian Academy of Science had sent to me in 2017 when I was researching Maryon. Made the connection from there. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Images and External links
 * Given the excellent images the article now has, for which many thanks, I'm not sure the link to the deprecated Find a Grave is necessary, but it's not a deal-breaker for me.
 * I take your point, and was close to removing the link as a result. But I do think there's some value in an article that's about a grave linking to the the Find a Grave entry about that grave, similar to how a biography might link to its subject's personal website—not for its reliability, but for its relevance. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments Suppport from Tim riley
Not much to quibble about that I can see.
 * Historic England is blue-linked in the main text but not in the lead.
 * Added link. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The paragraph on Herbert Maryon has his surname five times – the third and fourth could as well be "he", smoothing the prose.
 * Changed one to "he". That, plus the addition of a new sentence, I think smooths it out. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * On my screen (though perhaps not on others) the two inscriptions don't line up with each other, which looks a bit messy. (Just tried it on my laptop as well: they're still skew-whiff there too.)
 * I'm not sure what the issue is. On desktop, laptop, and phone, it lines up for me. Could it be that the photo is pushing the first inscription over for you? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't press the point. If other reviewers have no problem I shall subside.   Tim riley  talk   21:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Although readers will know roughly what the size and shape of a typical grave is, it would be good to specify the precise dimensions of Maryon's work here.
 * That's a good point. Somewhat surprisingly, however, Historic England doesn't provide the dimensions. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't cite what isn't anywhere to be cited, and we can't send you out with a tape measure for a spot of WP:OR, so OK.  Tim riley  talk   21:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * From the point of view of septuagenarian eyesight, the pictures, particularly the second and third, are on the small side. Of course one can click on them for a larger version, but even so, I think they could be a bit bigger in the article.
 * How does it look now? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, MOS:IMAGESIZE just taught me that each user has a "base" image size that can be adjusted in one's preferences. In other words, if it would be helpful for you to have images display larger as a general matter, it looks like there is a way to do so. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Good grief! That's too hard for me, but the pictures look better now.  Tim riley  talk   21:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I hope these points are helpful.  Tim riley  talk   08:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, . Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Responses are wholly convincing. Happy to support: a good read, well and widely sourced, evidently balanced and comprehensive and well illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view.  Tim riley  talk   21:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Excellent article. Just a few comments from me:
 * SC
 * Lead
 * Does 'its "unusual" design' need what look like scare quotes? It's a common enough single word that we don't need to quote. (Or broaden the quote)
 * Reworded and expanded: In 2022, Historic England designated the work a Grade II listed building, noting it as an unusual example of both Art Nouveau metalwork and churchyard memorial.


 * Description
 * Is it in "an Art Nouveau style" or "the Art Nouveau style"?
 * "The", I think. Changed. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * History
 * "For group value": I have no idea what this means, but the rest of the sentence works without it
 * Added a footnote. It means "the contribution the building makes to the architectural or historic interest of any group of buildings of which it forms part". --Usernameunique (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hope these help - SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Nice article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

voorts
Seeing no major issues, I support, with three notes:
 * The section on Herbert Maryon is currently a sea of blue. I think you can get rid of the links to Reading, Berkshire, the first and second world wars, the OBE, ship-burial, and 1956 birthday honors, which aren't really that relevant to the article content.
 * There is a lot of blue, to be sure, although the sea-of-blue guideline identifies it as a problem only when the links are directly next to each other. I've gotten this down to only one instance (Sutton Hoo ship-burial), which is unavoidable—the same double link appears in pretty much ever related article. (Separately, note that Reading was linked per ; personally, I'm largely indifferent to that link.) --Usernameunique (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed a bit. Reading was linked per a comment above.
 * The second paragraph of the history section can be condensed by paraphrasing the quotes.
 * I condensed those lines in the lead, as per comments above, but I think there's some value in quoting them in full in the body, especially given that Historic England doesn't provide much information on the designation to begin with. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Move explanatory note 5 up to the first mention of "group value".
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Great work. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . --Usernameunique (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Theramin
Not sure when or why we started to swamp the FAC TOC with subheadings, but the TOC is an unreadable mess now anyway so I'll just do the same as everyone else.

I have a few comments. Given the nature of them, this may be better on the article's talk page, but I'll press on here.

On a general level, the article is quite short, so we can try to mine information more fully from the available sources.

For example, from the listing entry, we could mention that the riveted copper alloy sheets of the metal cross are formed around a masonry core (currently, the omission of any mention of an internal supporting structure in our article seems to imply to me that it is a freestanding metal object).
 * Does this line not say that? That was the intent behind it, but I can try to make it more clear. The memorial is placed over the grave of the Duffields, which is made of brick. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We have one source (an old newspaper) saying of Mrs Duffield's oak coffin: "the interment was made in a brick grave" - but does that mean a burial shaft lined with brick, or a grave plot with a low brick surround, or an area covered with a more substantial brick superstructure? And then we have a more recent source saying the memorial is made from "sheet metal in rivetted sections formed around a masonry core" or "rivetted metal plate with raised seams encasing a masonry core", plus "kerbs of the same construction". I suspect this means the standing cross is formed around a stone or brick core, distinct from and standing above the grave.  Perhaps the metal kerb covers an original brick surround, but I'd be surprised if the only masonry elements were the bricks in place at the time of Mrs Duffield's funeral.  I could be wrong, but the sources don't say one way or the other, so I don't think we can assume the masonry referred to later is the same as the brick referred to before.
 * But this was really by way of example. I dare say some of the sources could do with a close reading to check that no other details are omitted. Theramin (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

And is there any record of what was shown on the medallion that has been removed? Any old pictures of the memorial or the graveyard? Or any record of when and why it was removed? Does it still exist somewhere, in the church perhaps, or was it just stolen or lost?
 * Nothing, unfortunately. And emailing the church elicited no response. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Are there any sources that discuss the stylistic development of Maryon's known works before and after - the flared base, for example, or use of copper. The list of Works of Herbert Maryon have some similar elements. The base of the Winged Victory, and the flaring of the copper casket. The flared stem and lettering of the silver cup. The wheel cross on his war memorials.
 * Those are interesting observations. Unfortunately, there aren't really any works that discuss his artistic style or development; other than the facts of where he was at what dates and (to a certain extent) what he made, there isn't much to go on. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The Broomfield source mentions WWD's schooling at Chelmsford Grammar School where he was later a governor, and his legal training as an articled clerk with Charles Parker in Chelmsford. Apologies, but I am about to dive into social history again.

I think that was Charles George Parker (1780–1847) who was the son of John Oxley Parker; his brother the land agent Christopher Comyns Parker has an entry in the ODNB. Christopher's son Charles Alfred Parker formed Strutt & Parker with Edward Gerald Strutt (who was a son of the second Baron Rayleigh). The land agent aspect becomes relevant again shortly, but if nothing else this shows that Duffield was well connected with the Essex gentry.

WWD seems to have started in legal practice on his own account in 1846 (if I am right, note death of his training principal in 1847: I have no proof but I suspect WWD may have taken over Parker's practice). At some point he entered into a partnership with William John Bruty (died 1925, aged 92, so Duffield must have practised alone or with others for a while until Bruty was old enough), with offices in London (Tokenhouse Yard, then New Broad Street) and Chelmsford and Waltham Abbey, which was dissolved "by mutual consent" and reformed as two separate partnerships in 1900, one for "Duffield Son and Smee" (with ASD and Thomas John Smee) in Chelmsford, and a separate one continuing as "Duffield, Bruty & Co" for the Bruty, and WWD and ASD, and other partners, in London and Waltham Abbey.

The two separate firms continued for some time: Duffield, Bruty & Co seems to have lasted until at least 1972, just after the death of Sir Edgar Henry Newton, 2nd Baronet, when there is a mention in the Law Society Gazette of "Nash Field & Co incorporating Duffield Bruty & Co at 9 Devereux Court" which firm was also practising under the name of "Duffield Bruty & Co" in Waltham Cross and Hoddesdon. I suspect a successor firm continues today based in Hoddesdon under the name Duffield Harrison LLP. The firm claims to have been formed in 1843.

Meanwhile, the Chelmsford firm of Duffield and Son continued until recently, becoming Duffield Welch then Duffield Stunt and merging into Backhouse Solicitors as recently as 2015.  The successor law firm claims ancestry back to 1799, which may date back to the time of Charles Parker or even before.

The Duffield Stunt name continued as a separate estate agency until the business was acquired by Charles David Casson in 2017. Now the name is little more than memory in Chelmsford, apart from Duffield Road past Great Baddow High School. The grand old office at 95 High Street has long been left behind to become a coffee shop, but the names continue to exist on Duke Street in Google Streetview.

I'm not suggesting you need all of this by any means, and it is at best tangential to the memorial, but to some extent it goes to the social position of the Duffields, and some indication of the longevity of the law firms might be nice.


 * Those are all interesting points. I've dug further into the history of the firms; Duffield, Bruty & Co survived with name unchanged until 1989, when it became Duffield Harrison, as you say. I don't think Duffield Welch is related, but the remaining history of Duffield & Son is also as you say; acquired 2015, name fully extinguished 2017. This is now all added to the article, with cites. Otherwise, there is certainly more than enough material to write an article on William Ward Duffield, which is where I think some of your excellent research above belongs. It's fascinating to see the interconnection between all the different people and entities. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You mention Reliance Life and Norwich Union separately. Well, Norwich Union acquired the business of Reliance Life around 1893, which explains why WWD ended up on the London board of the latter. (The London offices of Reliance Life - which had a successful business in East Anglia, particularly Essex - still stand today at 70 King William Street - the curved building on the corner beside St Clement's, Eastcheap.)
 * Good catch. Happily, I've found an obituary of Duffield which specifically mentions that his position changed from Reliance to Norwich with the acquisition. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm delighted that you've made a link between the wider Duffield family and Maryon in Reading. That has narrowed a significant gap, although without sources for a commission it remains a little tenuous. This may be irrelevant, and they may not be related to our Herbert, but there do seem to be some Maryons in Chelmsford around this time. For example, look who is mentioned together here under "Chelmsford Corn Exchange Company".
 * I've added a paragraph on the background of the Maryons. This adds two specific details. First, Maryon wrote a letter to Walter Duffield in 1915, so they clearly knew each other. Second, the S. W. Maryon who knew W. W. Duffield (nice find) is a somewhat distant relation; the 1895 family tree by Herbert Maryon's brother had a good idea of the relationship, but could not definitively nail it down (an inability which led to a cutting review). It's thus doubtful that there was a close connection between Herbert and S. W. Maryon. Beyond those specifics, however, the paragraph adds to the larger socio-historical point, which I think you're driving at, that the Maryons and Duffields, as a whole, were most likely known to each other. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that is a bit of an half-digested brain dump. I don't expect you to pick through it all, but perhaps there are some nuggets to pull out, or trains of thought to follow. Failing that, you can remain tightly focused on these delightful 111 year old bits of copper, about which we know very little. Theramin (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, . Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. All good, and I'm content to support, although further development of the article after this FAC concludes would be welcome, as always, as and when further sources come to light. Theramin (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass
All images are appropriately licenced. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Great Baddow Duffield Memorial Front Profile.jpg, File:Duffield Memorial Great Baddow Right Profile.jpg, File:Duffield Memorial Great Baddow Plaque.jpg - All created by a Wikipedian with CC 4.0 licence - okay.
 * Thanks, . --Usernameunique (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review
Spot-check upon request. Is "Bruce, Ian (2001). The Loving Eye and Skilful Hand: The Keswick School of Industrial Arts. Carlisle:" a reliable source? I see a lot here is sourced to newspaper articles, particularly regional/local ones - are these high-quality reliable sources? Source formatting is consistent and the necessary information is there. Does Newspapers.com need archive links? Google Books doesn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, . Bruce 2001 is reliable; it's one of the only serious looks at the Keswick School of Industrial Arts, and is also relied on in the featured article Herbert Maryon. The newspapers are also reliable—they're primarily used to talk about the Duffields, for whom regional contemporaneous news accounts would be the primary reliable source of information. As for the archived links, I've decided it's a losing battle; InternetArchiveBoy automatically adds them, so even if they're removed now, at some point they'll be back. I do see value in the archives newspapers.com links, though; it's conceivable that, at some point, they could stop providing free viewing of clips. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Usernameunique: You can use cbignore to prevent bots from readding links. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Gonna ask and  whether we can stop the bot from archiving Google Books. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Jo-Jo, just checking that we are still waiting on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the bot incorrectly adding archive links seems like an issue for the bot and not FAC and while I am always iffy on using British newspapers as a source, I don't think that my view on them has widespread backing on Wikipedia. I don't have a good feeling about using "cbignore" because that one excludes the bot from the entire article rather than just the few sources it is breaking, though, but this also isn't a FAC issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So is that a pass Jo-Jo, however reluctantly? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)