Talk:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi there, I am reviewing this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and as this may take more than one sitting, I am leaving my initial comments below before providing a full review to allow you to get on with them at once. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly appreciate any constructive criticism you can suggest. Also very much appreciate you taking the time to provide a review. --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues

• "An impressive achievement for a largely rural island with a population of only 240,000 people" - attribute this to who said it (its probably best as a quote from Cassell).

Sentence change. Removed "impressive achievement" and combined with first sentence.  Done

• "entrained" - I always though this meant getting on a train rather than being trained, check it please.

Changed to "regiment trained at various locations" instead.  Done

• "increased from an initial contingent of 500 men to battalion strength," - which was?

Full battalion strength was approximately 1000 men. incorporated.  Done

• "which included" - "including" is better grammatically.  Done
• Does the article Danger Tree really require its own page, or would it be better incorporated into this page? It certainly should be mentioned in the Site section along with any other memorials currently omitted.

The Danger Tree article actually precedes the creation of the Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial article by about 2 years. I'll suggest a merger and see where that goes.

In the meantime, could you mention the Danger Tree in the article at the point where the development of the memorial is discussed, expanding if necessary follwing the merge?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A Danger Tree sub-section has been created under the Site section. Likewise the work has been written and cited to a higher level than the Danger Tree article. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

*"all intents and purposes the Newfoundland Regiment had been all but wiped out" - repetition of "all".  Done

• "suffered a staggering casualty" - the point has been made already, no need for "staggering".  Done
• "The Newfoundland Regiment continued to see action" - in the battle, really? With such heavy casualties? When did they return to the front line?

Yep. July 14th, taking over the front line near Auchonvillers. The regiment had been reinforced by the arrival of 127 men from the regimental depot, and totaled 11 officers and 270 men when they went back into the line. On July 17th the 88th Brigade, and the whole 29th division I believe, moved out of line and was transferred to the Ypres sector which was at that time much quieter. Would you like this incorporated in brevity? --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be good, thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Expanded to incorporate data, citation included --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Done

• "Battle of the Somme continued largely" - "largely" is redundant.  Done
• "unsuccessful attack during the first day of the Battle of the Somme" - you don't need to link the battle again

nope. delinked  Done

• "Newfoundland was left bereft and confused, with a sense of loss that marked an entire generation" - sounds a bit POV, is it from a quote? If not, is there a similar quote that can be attributed?

I toned it down and removed "bereft and confused", but it was essentially a quote from the ref. citation.  Done --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Move the quotation from Lisle from the end to the section about the battle (unless he said it in relation to the memorial specifically).

Quote move. Quote is from a message sent to Newfoundland in the aftermath of the battle. Please let me know if it's current placement is satisfactory.  Done --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Today, the Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial site serves an informal ambassadorial function" - avoid "today", instead use "The Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial site also serves".  Done

And thats it. When you have addressed the above I'll be happy to pass the article. Thanks,--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good changes. I left two supplementary notes for you to follow, but this is close to passing. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work, I see no reason not to pass this now. When the result of the merge becomes clear then make the changes, but its a procedural issue, and doesn't conflict with the GA criteria. My only remaining question was to ask if you knew what the replica of the Danger Tree was made from? Otherwise, excellent.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to conduct a review. If you have any any suggestions for improvement, I have started a peer review to see whether the current page layout is an acceptable template for battlefield memorials to which none are at a GA or higher level. Far as I know it's just an old tree / large branch that was cemented into the ground. It's not made of anything synthetic like plastic or fiberglass, just old wood. The picture on the Danger Tree article gives you an idea. I have no idea though when the replica was put into place. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)