Talk:East Knoyle War Memorial

Improvements

HJ Mitchell, since war memorials seem to be within your wheelhouse, I thought I'd drop you a line and see if you have any suggestions for this article, or for other places to look for sources. I've structured it after Manchester Cenotaph, and would welcome any feedback you have—one thought that has crossed my mind would be to perhaps include some information on those named on the memorial, although this doesn't seem to be something that you generally do in your articles. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:East Knoyle War Memorial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead is a little brief for an article of this size, there's nothing about the design for example. My rule of thumb is cover the most pertinent part of each major section in brief in the lead.

• Added a second paragraph, how does it look now?

• "listed building.[1][2]" this, presumably, is referenced in the article so need for the citations in the lead.

• Removed. That was a holdover from when the article was a stub, which I forgot to update.

• "by 1918, the village had only 650 residents" why? Not dead, but serving still? Or something else?
• Ah I see. I think this sentence would be better off in the next para after you explain the reasons for the decline.

• Done.

• "For Soldiers from East Knoyle killed in war" why the capital S?

• Changed. I initially capitalized "soldiers" since it is the first word in the infobox template ("commemorates = Soldiers from East Knoyle killed in war"), without noticing the resulting error.

• "had cut his teeth" not encyclopedic in tone.

• Changed ("Maryon had established himself")

• " University of Reading likewise tapped him" overlinked, and "tapped him" again doesn't feel encyclopedic in tone.

• Removed link, and changed word ("likewise commissioned him").

• "plinth sits, and a thin, tapering shaft that rises 16 feet (4.9 m) from the plinth" quick repeat of plinth.

• Reworded: "It comprises a three-stepped square base set beneath a square plinth, from which a thin, tapering shaft rises 16 feet (4.9 m) and terminates in a small wheel cross."

• St Mary's Church is overlinked.

• Fixed.

• ""East Knoyle - Cross"" en-dash.

• Sure.

• National Heritage List for England is overlinked.

• Those links come automatically with the NHLE citation template.

• "9, 557" is that 9,557 or something else? Likewise 10, 338.

• That's a template error, and it's always bugged me. Just asked on the relevant talk page.

That's it for a first pass. Nothing major, so on hold for the moment. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Much obliged as always, The Rambling Man. Responses above. Separately, impressive work in plowing through all those art and architecture nominations. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• No worries. Two more things. The article says "at least 20" died yet exactly 20 are named, the lead is precise. Secondly, a Bible verse is mentioned in the lead but not noted or expanded in the main part. Do we know what verse? Then we're done. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Usernameunique sorry to be a pain, you might not have seen this note so pinging you just in case. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up, The Rambling Man—indeed, I forgot to watch this page. The bible verse is covered by the line in "Design" that "John 15:13 is inscribed to its left". Do you think we need to clarify that John 15:13 is a bible verse? I've also added a footnote after the "at least 20" which explains the discrepancy; how does it look?

No need at all to apologize for "being a pain"; I intend on bringing this to FAC after here, so the attention to detail is particularly appreciated. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Usernameunique looks good (and sorry for the John oversight, my bad). I'll promote now as this is easily GA quality. Let me know if you have anything else in the pipeline that needs review. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, The Rambling Man. Much appreciated as always. As I mentioned, Benty Grange hanging bowl is on its way to a nomination in the next week or so; I may also try to tidy John Richard Clark Hall and nominate it, given that it is about as complete as the sources will allow --Usernameunique (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

East Knoyle War Memorial

• ... that the East Knoyle War Memorial (pictured), designed by Herbert Maryon, was erected in the aftermath of the First World War, but now commemorates those who died in the Second World War and Iraq War as well? Source: Historic England
  • ALT1:... that among those commemorated by the East Knoyle War Memorial (pictured) are three brothers who died in the First World War, twelve soldiers killed in the Second, and one killed by friendly fire in the Iraq War?

• Reviewed: Bx15 (New York City bus)

Created by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 20:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC).

• Article is new and long enough. At 5,809 prose chars, it is at least a start-class article. Assessment at its talkpage needs to be modified from stub-class. It is neutral. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports no significant text similarities. Article needs copyediting (see e.g. ... died died ... under "Background"). The hook is well-formatted and interesting. However, its length with 209 chars exceeds the limit. Hook fact is partly cited inline. Please check. The image is ©-free. QPQ was done. I will approve after a.m. issues are addressed. CeeGee 12:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, CeeGee. I've given the article another read through (and added another hook). As far as character count goes, the (pictured) is not included, which brings to 197 and 200 characters for ALT0 and ALT1, respectively—just within the limit. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right with the exclusion of "(pictured)" in hook's word count. Sorry about that. Everything is fine now for the original hook. Good to go. CeeGee 07:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)