Template:Did you know nominations/Battalion Park

Battalion Park

 * ... that the centre piece of Battalion Park, at west Calgary, is 16,000 large whitewashed stones, arranged on a hill slope representing the battalions numbered 137, 113, 151, and 51 (pictured)?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Williams–DuBois House

Created/expanded by Nvvchar (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk), Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 09:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The hook fact is sourced, the image appropriately licensed and QPQ done. I have tweaked the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I am concerned that some of the phrasing in this article may be too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "A number of military units also created more monumental rock constructions, assembling thousands of stones to form the serif-type numerals of their battalion numbers" with "A number of military units also created more monumental rock constructions, assembling thousands of stones to form the serif-type numerals of their battalion numbers". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Reworded, any more which are sus?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That one, still. "assembling thousands of stones to draw the serif-type numerals of their battalions" vs "assembling thousands of stones to form the serif-type numerals of their battalion". Another example is "who trained in the region before embarking for combat deployment overseas during World War I" vs "who trained in the region before embarking for combat deployment overseas during the First World War", or "Following extensive lobbying to declare the numbers as a historic site, a project was initiated by several cadet groups in Calgary" vs "Following extensive lobbying to declare the numbers a historic site, a project initiated by several cadet groups". A complete check and significant rewriting is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nikkimaria, hopefully, I have addressed all the above concerns. Pl check. Thanks.-- Nvvchar . 13:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Was a complete check of the article truly done? That is, not just the specific examples, but the article against its sources? The "assembling thousands" text still remains; I don't think it's fair to Nikkimaria to ask her to review for a third time until a more thorough and effective check has been done. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've given the article a c/e. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Much better, thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)