Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Monmouth Cemetery

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 14:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Monmouth Cemetery

[edit]
(
)


Add caption text!

Created/expanded by Antarchie (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 22:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Review:
Date is checks out, just long enough, is neutral, both hooks are short enough and quite interesting, they're supported by inline citations too, article creator isn't the same as the nominator, so no QPQ needed, image appears to be good.
  • Issues I see with the nominated article are:
1. The cited sources, all online, are formatted in a way which only gives the title and access date for the source, I'd prefer more information, like who's work the sources are, who the authors are, when the sources were created etc.
2. The article claims that the problems with the decaying bodies resurfacing at the previous cemetery were caused "due to the raised height in the churchyard", while the cited source makes it clear that the problems originated in that the cemetery was "raised on a mass of decaying bones several feet", which I interpret as meaning that the problems were caused by too many people being buried at a location over time.
3. The article states: "The site was taken over by the town council in 1960 and is owned and maintained by Monmouthshire Council." I can't find this in the source. And how can the town council take over a site in 1960, when the article also claims that the same land was sold to the council in the 19th century?
4. The 2010 restoration of the chapel doesn't seem to be supported by the cited source.
5. The article makes it sound like the cemetery is permanently closed for new burials, while the source says the council will "review the situation in June".
6. The section called "Facilities" is unreferenced.
All in all, these issues should be possible to fix. Manxruler (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review Manxruler. These are all good areas for improvement so Ive copied these suggestions to the article's talk page. Apart from item 6, which is arguable, I don't think any of these issues prevent the hook from being approved and it is important that the review process is even handed. Thanks again Victuallers (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually all solved by author. The Alt below might work well on St Davids Day (Match 1st)
  • (Alt2)... that you can find your Welsh ancestry by studying at Monmouth Cemetery's geneology centre (pictured)?
  • I'm not prejudiced against Monmouth in the least, so the review should be even handed. I've now looked over my points again since the author has done some further work on the article. On point 3. I still can't see that the source supports the remaining part of that statement, i.e. that it is "...owned and maintained by Monmouthshire Council." It's a minor thing, but still. To remedy that simply use as a reference the summer 2010 newsletter (which does say that the council has the maintenance etc. of the cemetery). Other than that, things seem to be good order. As for Alt2, I suppose that works, seeing as one can study local genealogy at the cemetery, which is in Wales. We're good to go. I personally prefer the original hook. Manxruler (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Apologies Manxruler I think you may have thought that I was implying bias when I said "even handed". Not at all. I was actually thinking that we (the DYK project) insist (99% of the time) that monminations comply with the rules. IMO this means that we shouldn't use the power of our approval process to underline good advice and suggestions which are "merely" helpful. Hope that makes sense and I know its a thankless task. So thanks. Victuallers (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
That's okay, Victuallers. I, not being a native English speaker, had to look up "even handed" at Merriam-Webster. Synonyms of evenhanded are: "candid, disinterested, dispassionate, equal, equitable, fair, impartial, indifferent, just, nonpartisan, objective, square, unbiased, unprejudiced." These are things I'd like to be in this context.
While some of my points might be "merely" helpful, I believe that at least points 3 (content not supported by the cited source), 4 (same as point 3.), 5 (content not reflecting what the source says) and 6 (lack of references) are important enough to be required to be fixed before approval. I've also seen a number of nominations stopped because the refs were not properly formatted (point 1), although in this case they were better than bare urls. Manxruler (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Monmouth_Cemetery&oldid=1020467491"