Template:Did you know nominations/St Symphorien Military Cemetery


 * The following 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 16:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

St Symphorien Military Cemetery

 * ... that the first and last Commonwealth soldiers killed in action during the First World War are buried in St Symphorien Military Cemetery?


 * ALT1: ... that the first World War I posthumous recipients of the Victoria Cross and Iron Cross are both buried in St Symphorien Military Cemetery?

5x expanded by Labattblueboy (talk). Self-nominated at 21:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg A1: Expansion began on 15 November (should really have been placed on that date, not 19 November, but that is less important) and by my count has been expanded from about 2,800 character to slightly less than 12,000 characters, a fivefold expansion would be an expansion to c. 14,000 characters. A2: Needs about another 2,000 characters to be expanded five-fold. A3: Neutral. Cites sources (although ref. 14, central for hook alternative 1, is dead). No copy-vio found.
 * H1: Both hooks are short enough. H2: I find both hooks interesting. They are cited, and are neutral. One of the links used as reference for hook 1 is however dead. No BLP issues.
 * According to QPQ check, user only have two DYKs from before, so no QPQ needed.
 * Needs another 2,000 characters, and if hook 1 were to be used, it would be nice if the 404 link that is the reference for the first Commonwealth soldier to die would be fixed. Manxruler (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see the reference link has been fixed. Just needs another 2,000 or so characters added, then it will be good to go. Manxruler (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a look know, approx 4000bytes inserted.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's long enough now. One more thing, though, does "first British casualty" means the same as "first Commonwealth casualty" (meaning that the first soldier of the Commonwealth to die in the war was British)? Manxruler (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's correct. The first killed was British, the last killed was a Canadian.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I do believe that to be correct.
 * It would, however, be very nice if we had a cited source which said that. What The Maple Leaf says is: ...the first British battle casualty of the First World War, Private John Parr of the 4th Battalion, Middlesex Regiment, is buried near the last Commonwealth battle casualty of the war (and probably of all combatants), Pte George Lawrence Price..." Is there a source available that says that John Parr was not only the first British, but also the first Commonwealth, soldier to die in that conflict? I've looked at Parr's Wikipedia article, but the refs there are mostly deadlinks. Could you dig up a source that says that John Parr was the first Commonwealth soldier to die (sorry if I appear to be nitpicking but the Commonwealth does cover a lot of territory and a lot of people, so it would be good to have a ref for the first Commonwealth soldier killed being British). Manxruler (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg According to DYKcheck, the article had 2767 prose characters prior to expansion, meaning that the article needs to be 13835 prose characters long to achieve a 5x expansion. At the moment, DYKcheck finds 13677 prose characters, or 158 short of the required 5x. The necessary addition should be straightforward. The sourcing requested above has been waiting for two weeks now, and action is needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say that 158 characters give or take shouldn't really matter for an article of this size. Some slight flexibility should be expected when it comes to these things. The sourcing issue is real, however, and the fact that no action has been taken for two weeks is very worrisome. Manxruler (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, traveling through rural Cambodia and Myanmar, internet (and my desire to use it) has been spotty. You'll find a new source included (Gibson & Ward p 121).-Labattblueboy (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Very well done. I'm now ready to approve the nomination. Book source accepted AGF, and 158 characters give or take doesn't really matter for a 24,428 byte article. A tiny bit of flexibility should be implemented. Good to go. Merry Christmas, and happy travelling, Labattblueboy. Manxruler (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

your review failed to check for close paraphrasing. There is close paraphrasing from several sources which needs to be rewritten in your own words,. Close paraphrasing refers both to copying the words and the sentence structure (one sentence following another):
 * Source: At the end of the war, the cemetery officially had 245 German and 188 British graves. In the „20s and early '30s a number of British and German graves from the vicinity were moved to Saint-Symphorien.
 * Article: At the end of the war, the cemetery officially contained 245 German and 188 British graves. Following the war a number of British and German graves from the vicinity were moved to St. Symphorien
 * Source: Officers, however, had the right to a larger tombstone in order to clarify the distinction of rank.
 * Article: German officers were provided the right to a larger tombstone in order to clarify the distinction of higher military rank.
 * Source: the situation of the mixed British-German cemeteries, which had been built by the Germans during the war and which had a majority of German graves.
 * Article: the situation of the mixed British-German cemeteries in Belgium, which had been built by the Germans during the war and which had a majority of German graves.
 * Source: All the British were buried individually, grouped per unit as much as possible. A communal grave marking was put on a number of these British plots, which referred to the unit of the deceased.
 * Article: All the British were buried individually and grouped by unit as much as possible. A communal grave marking was put on a number of these British groups, which referred to the unit of the deceased.
 * Source: The main change is, however, that the British probably constructed an extra artificial elevation in the middle of the cemetery. The Cross of Sacrifice was placed on this hill. The German general monument (which was placed for the German and British dead) was kept in the original position
 * Article: The other main change was the construction of an artificial elevation in the middle of the cemetery and the erection of a Cross of Sacrifice on the raised hill. The German general monument was kept in the original position
 * Source: on the condition that the dead of both sides were treated with equal respect.
 * Article: on condition that the dead of both sides were treated with equal respect
 * Source: in the spring of 1916, a German officer called Captain Roemer approached local Belgian landowner Jean Houzeau de Lehaie suggesting a small area of old quarry land outside the village of St Symphorien.
 * Article: In the spring of 1916, a German officer named Captain Roemer approached local Belgian landowner Jean Houzeau de Lehaie while searching for an appropriate piece of land south-east of Mons. Jean Houzeau de Lehaie suggested a small area of old quarry land
 * Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. Should have caught that. That will have to be fixed. Manxruler (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ... Hchc2009 (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: in the concurrent GA review, Labattblueboy posted a couple of days ago that he still has spotty phone-only internet, and will be addressing the close paraphrasing issues when he can work via computer. We should hold the nomination open until he is able to edit properly again. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Thank you, you did a good job eliminating the close paraphrasing. If I was the original reviewer of this article, I would not IAR on the 176 characters missing from the 5x expansion. We're talking about adding only 2 or 3 sentences, which can certainly be found in your footnote 9 source. Yoninah (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 937 characters have been added to the article. Article now has 13668 characters (2183 words) "readable prose size" -- Esemono (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Esemono. The 5x goal is actually 13835 (from 2767 pre-expansion), as noted above, so there would appear to be 167 prose characters left to go. I'm guessing that the close paraphrasing edits reduced the prose a bit more than previously thought. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The decrease in text was largely due to the summary of the battle being trimmed as the GA review found it a bit long winded.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK what about now? Article stands at 14841 characters (2376 words) "readable prose size" -- Esemono (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the newly inserted news section as it was duplicate content. I don't personally see the merits in throwing in additional text just to meet an arbitrary line, particularly if might hurt the ongoing GA review.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * With your changes the article stands at 14347 characters (2293 words) "readable prose size"--Esemono (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Well done! Before expansion, the character count was 2770 char, and today it is 14,342 char - well over the 5x expansion limit. 5x expansion verified. No close paraphrasing seen in added text. I have taken the liberty of striking ALT1, because the original hook is IMO so much better. Hook ref verified and cited inline. Good to go! Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW have you considered submitting an image so this can run in the lead slot? Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , to be honest i had not considered it. There is no merged image of both graves so might I suggest File:0 Cimetière militaire binational de Saint-Symphorien (1).JPG, which is just a shot of the cemetery in general. There really isn't an image that is attention grabbing but if you believe there might be a better one I'm all ears.Labattblueboy (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the image you're using in the infobox is clearer and to the point:


 * Yoninah (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure I'm happy with that one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * or, I think the image question is concluded and this one is can be moved to prep.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)