Talk:Commonwealth War Graves Commission/GA2

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: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 07:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this article over the Easter long weekend Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments
This article is in great shape, and I have only the following comments: (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Ware eventually concluded that it was not prudent to leave the maintenance responsibilities solely to the French and subsequently arranged for the French to purchase the land" - who are the "French" being referred to here? Is it the French Government in each case? - if so, I'd suggest using this term
 * Done.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Similar negotiations were started with the Belgians" - ditto
 * Done.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "seventeen-thousand" - I think that 17,000 is preferred, or 17 thousand
 * Done.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Did the Graves Registration Commission cover the graves of non-British imperial forces? (eg, Australians, Canadians, Indians, etc)?
 * I know the answer to be yes as I know the Canadian War Museum archives has Directorate of Graves Registration and Enquiries photographs of Canadian headstones (see:File:Picture of the grave of Private Bartlett (CWM 20010076-007).jpg). Will need to see if I can find a source that makes it clear that it was not strictly British but anyone under the British Army umbrella.--Labattblueboy
 * That sounds sensible, especially as the dominion/colonial forces were integrated into the British Army Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'Architects and sculptors' section would benefit from some introductory text explaining the roles and responsibilities of these people
 * "The CWGC's work is funded predominantly by grants from the governments of the six member states. In the fiscal year 2012/13, these grants amounted to £58.6 million of the organization's £66.5 million of income" - where do the remaining funds come from?
 * 1. Investment income, 2."Funds received for agency purpose", which I suspect is funds for the care of graves/cemeteries outside it's traditional mandate 3. "Other incoming resource". There are no notes the the audited statements for me to use as references so if OK by you, I thought it best to leave it as is.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'Vandalism' section suffers a bit from recentism - I'd suggest tweaking this to be a discussion of the incidence of vandalism over time, rather than recent reports of this (the same applies to a certain degree to the 'Reburials and identifications' section which probably has too many recent examples of what's a regular practice which I imagine was much more common in the past)
 * I've tweaked the Reburials and identifications section to include historical perspective.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Vandalism section has edited to correct some of text, linking situations to individuals conflicts/political situations.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether Guy Gibson's gravestone is a good example of a 'standard headstone' given that he was a VC recipient and includes extra features as a result
 * Done. Gone with a rather more standard one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * While the sourcing is fine for GA level, I'd expect to see David Crane's recent book Empires of the Dead referenced by the time this reaches an A-class nomination (as I hope it does)
 * I am about half way through Crane's book, I am working on incorporating some of what we has to report. I believe I am soon coming onto a portion where a description for hte Architects and sculptors.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It would probably be worth noting that some (many?) CWGC-administrated cemeteries include non-Commonwealth graves. For instance, the Bayeux Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery (the only CWGC cemetery I've visited) includes the graves of Allied Polish personnel, as well as a German section. Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above is now my only non-addressed comment Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am having a great deal of trouble finding out exactly how the CWGC came to care for so many German graves or why they were not repriated to German cemeteries.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. As this isn't a big issue at GA level, I'll pass the review then. I vaguely remember reading or hearing that the practice started in the 1960s as a gesture of reconciliation with Germany, and the norm is now that when bodies of German soldiers are located they're buried in whatever the closest official war graves cemetery is, regardless of its national alignment. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you come across that source do let me know as I don't see a proper explanation coming up in any other source. Will keep looking though as I would like to see this article make A.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just butting in as I was reviewing another GAN, and stopped here purely out of interest... There are Harv errors for Signoli, i.e. citation #120 and the book reference -- these will be highlighted if you install this script. Also some bare urls for citations #124 and 126 should be tidied. Great to see a quality article on this subject BTW! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also butting in. I did some copyediting in the lead section in prep for A-class. This is looking very good. "The Commission" is repeated a bit too often, but I'm not sure what can be done about that. Where are we on Nick's last point? - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


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