Talk:St Symphorien Military Cemetery/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 10:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll read through and commence the review proper later on today. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * "Notable Commonwealth burials in the cemetery include John Parr and George Lawrence Price, traditionally believed to be the first and last Commonwealth soldiers killed in action during the First World War and Maurice Dease the first posthumous recipient of the Victoria Cross of the war. " - a missing comma after First World War.
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Most of the British and German dead from the Battle of Mons were buried in civilian cemeteries in Mons and surrounding villages" - "were initially buried" for clarity?
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "on their family estate lands " - "on his family estate lands" would be clearer
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "potentially to ensure " - I wasn't sure what "potentially" meant in this context. ("possibly"?)
 * Possibly is better. ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "were not alternately employed" - "was not used instead"? (either way, it has to be in the singular)
 * Changed to "was not employed instead". ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Following the war a number of British and German graves from the vicinity were moved to St. Symphorien until the cemetery reached " - I'd advise a comma after "Symphorien"
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * " were from units of IX Corps and died in 1914" - "and had died"
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * " (now Commonwealth War Graves Commission)" > " (now the Commonwealth War Graves Commission)"
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "referring to the order of German cemetery in a Belgian list " - there's something wrong here: "order of German cemeteries"?
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "which had been built by the Germans during the war and which had a majority of German graves" - unclear if this means that the graves in the cemeteries were predominantly German, or if the cemeteries contained the majority of the German war dead. I'm assuming the former.
 * Amended to clarify that the meeting concerned cemeteries established by the Germans and contained mostly Germans.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "This meeting was brought upon by the fact that the Imperial War Graves Commission had begun altering these cemeteries " It might be easier to go: "This meeting was brought about by the Imperial War Graves Commission altering these cemeteries..."
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "but other than providing missing tombstones for a number of unidentified graves, " - missing comma after "but"
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "The design of the cemetery was accomplished by Captain Bäumer" - "carried out by"?
 * Changed to "Captain Bäumer designed the cemetery, assisted by militia-private Pieper".✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "which was strongly present in Germany at the time" - "which was dominant in Germany at the time"?
 * Changed to "popular in Germany at the time".--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "all within a calming woodsy environment" - I'd avoid "woodsy", as it is only really used in North America. "all within a calming, arboreal environment"?
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * " Young trees and later extra conifers" > " Young trees and, later, extra conifers"
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "were planted between the plots to ensure each plot was visually" - you don't need the second "plot" here
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "The plants being donated by the city of Bielefeld" > "The plants were donated by the city of Bielefeld."?
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "There being a number of organizations in Germany " > "There were a number..."
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "All the British were buried individually and grouped by unit as much as possible" - "as far as possible" might be more natural
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "carved from a locally extracted stone" > "locally quarried stone"
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "petit granit" - I'd go for petit granit, as the term is French
 * "German officers were provided the right to a larger tombstone in order to clarify the distinction of higher military rank." > "German officers were offered larger tombstones to illustrate their higher military rank."?
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "and it's not known what was initially on their grave markings" > "it is not known"
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "A classic seven-meter obelisk memorial " - classic, or classical? I'm assuming the latter.
 * I am also going to assume that's the case. Source says classic but classical seems more appropriate. ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "and contains a German inscription " - if you went for "and contained", it would keep the tense similar to the rest of the paragraph
 * Edited to ditch "contains", it was our of place.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Near the cemetery entrance a tablet in Latin" - a comma after "entrance" would help the flow
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * "Sharpnel 26 (2)" - I think this should be "Shrapnel".
 * ✅Labattblueboy (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not a GAR requirement, but some of the volumes cited have location and publisher listed, and some just publisher; ideally it would be consistent. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. The particulars references in to Courage remembered is amended to the online version, which I have access to remotely.Labattblueboy (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.


 * None found. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * I wasn't 100% sure about the Battle of Mons section. It felt like quite a lot of detail on the battle itself which then wasn't really picked up in the main article. In particular, I couldn't see that the details of the corps, the exact timings etc. were needed here. I don't know if you'd consider trimming it slightly? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I trimmed it by about a third. See this diff and let me know if that seems sufficient: .--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * Appears neutral at this point. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * File:St Symphorien Military CemeterySt Symphorien Military Cemetery Map.jpg needs a creation or publication date to justify the Crown Copyright expiry claim. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This one was a difficult one. The map was originally published in the war graves registry associated with the Mons cemetery group. The original date of publication was 1929 with re-publication in 1984. The group registry contains details on cemeteries 241 to 264, St Symphorien Military Cemetery is coded 242. See for some of the publication details. ✅--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * Generally good, two minor points:
 * "are remanents of the original cemetery design" - should be "remnants"
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The "Military Cemetery (English and German) and British memorial of Saint-Symphorien" in the infobox as the image caption doesn't seem to be displaying, probably because of the way it's been formatted. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hchc2009: I have just completed a close paraphrasing check for the DYK nomination of this article, and found quite a bit of copying from the sources. Yoninah (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - I'm putting the review on hold for now - could you take a look at the issues Yoninah has raised? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been away from internet and only have a phone to edit (in Myanmar). As soon as I have a deakrop to edit on I'll let you know.-Labattblueboy (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree that in a number of instances text was far too similar. I don't agree with all of the examples listed by but the observation was nevertheless well taken. I've had a run through the material and with the assistance of Earwig's Copyvio Detector and Duplication Detector I believe I have addressed any potential areas of concern.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Labattblueboy. You did an excellent job getting rid of the close paraphrasing. This GA nomination can proceed. Yoninah (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Last bits done - just about to pass. Thanks for everyone's efforts on this. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)