Talk:Commonwealth War Graves Commission/GA1

GA Review

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 00:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a really good article, but I don't think that it is ready for a Good Article status. Key problems: Fix these up and things should be good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) There are a large number of paragraphs that are not completely referenced. I've inserted  tags
 * 2) The Memorials section is completely missing
 * 3) Missing References:
 * 4) Gavin 2010
 * 5) Lutyens 2010
 * 6) Dickson 2011
 * Thanks for looking at this, Hawkeye. I should be able to reference some of the bits you've tagged as citation needed. How long would I have to do that? About the missing 'memorials' section, I think that was inserted by someone who (rightly) wanted the memorials to have their own section. Probably the best person to ask there is the editor who wrote the World War I memorials article. I will drop a note on their talk page. I think those missing references are typos. 'Gavin 2010' may be a typo for one of the Gavin Stamp references (I have those books so can check that). Lutyens 2010 is probably 'Geurst, Jeroen (2010). Cemeteries of the Great War By Sir Edwin Lutyens.' And Dickson 2011 is almost certainly a typo for 'Dickon, Chris (2011). The Foreign Burial of American War Dead: A History. McFarland.' Carcharoth (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put the article on hold. You can have a couple of weeks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should get to it by tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now made a start, fixing the three missing references. I can get to the missing citations bit later in the week. But comparing the three sources I've looked at so far with the text of the article, I'm not happy with the phrasing. A lot of it is too close (or even directly copies) the text used in the sources. I need to take a closer look at this before doing any more work on this, and if I don't have the time someone else needs to look. Dickon and Geurst are both available as a preview through Google Books (at least in the UK) if anyone else wants to check the article text against the source text. Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye, I've done what I can for now (changes). I think the article still needs a fair amount of work to tidy various sections and ensure the coverage is reasonably complete. I'm going to put some notes about that on the talk page (including notes on what still needs doing and the sources I've been using). The bit about the memorials section being missing is something I can address, but will take longer than just this weekend. Really, the article needs to be rejigged to bring the memorials in at the right point - I'll say more about that on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I am closing the review for now. Please re-nominate it when the problems have been addressed. It is really a high quality article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.