Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Canadian National Vimy Memorial

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 00:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian National Vimy Memorial

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk)

The article recently completed a thorough GA and as a result, I believe the article is closer to an A, rather than a GA, level. The intent is to improve the article to a FA level; I think the memorials task force could use a couple more. Labattblueboy (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support – quite a good article, and an interesting one at that, but a little work is required before A-Class:

Conversion templates are required in the "Topography" section.
Images require alt text.

The images all have alt text. Is it that a better description is needed? --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I missed that, but yeah, a better description of the images would be best. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alt text is now significantly expanded. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Battle of Vimy Ridge" section, even though it should be obvious, it should actually be clarified in the "For the first time all four Canadian divisions were assembled to participate in a battle together" sentence that the battle actually was Vimy Ridge.

Done. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is inconsistency with the presentation of measurements, with some utilizing the Imperial format and others the Metric variant. One should be consistent throughout.

This one also came up as an issue at GA. The issue at hand is sources do not consistently use imperial or metric. The solution was to list both, with the whatever unit of measure is used in the source listed as the first figure and using the convert template to list the other. The suggested direction came about from MOS(dates and numbers)#Which units to use and how to present them. There is nonetheless conflict between balancing consistency with properly presenting the figure cited within the source. I am OK with the call either way, I just don't want it to become an issue at FAC. Direction would be appreciated.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the summary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge goes into a little too much detail. A summary of the battle is required, of course, to give an understanding on the background and significance of the memorial, but I don't think quite so much detail is quite warranted in some areas. This is just my thoughts, and I am open to others' opinions.

Understood. I have a test text in my sandbox, if you wouldn't mind having a look and making a comment. I thought it more appropriate the remove battle text but possibly insert text regarding the influence of the battle. Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's good. Well done! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Migration from sandbox to article completed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of close repetition in the "Selection" section, or beginnings of sentences that are similar to the end of the previous. For example, the decision on a competition.

Edited. Please review. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little confusing. It states at the start of the "Selection" section that identical memorials would be built on the eight sites, but later the committee debates on where to build the monument and decides on Vimy Ridge.

Additional information inserted to clarify. Please review. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is inconsistency in the application of titles, in that Byng is included with his title of "Sir" but Currie is not.

Removed titles of "Sir". Seemed like the easiest option. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the acquisition of land should be mention before the design competition.

Combined the land acquisition text into the selection section. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first three paragraphs of the "Memorial construction" section, the delay in the delivery of limestone is mentioned, and in much the same manner. I don't think it really needs to be repeated so many times.

cut down to one mention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The 20 sculptured figures on memorial" - grammatical issue here.

Removed passive text. Changed to: "Sculptors carved the 20 human figures on-site, from large blocks of stone." --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The carvers conducted their work year-round inside temporary studios built around each figure." - this sentence is without a cite.

Citation inserted. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"was not been part of the original design" - grammatical issue here.

Corrected to: "was not part of the original design". --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Interestingly, the ceremony was one of King Edward VIII" - "Interestingly" is redundant.

Agreed. Removed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a major $30-million restoration project" - which dollars they were should be clarified, as in were they Canadian or US, etc.

Corrected and presented as directed in MOS:CURRENCY. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Interpretive centre" is uncited, and probably should be merged with another section as it is so small.

Section deleted content folded into section lead and citation added. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is inconsistency in the presentation of access dates for cites.

There was inconsistencies in both dates and access dates, both have been corrected. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cites should not be in all capitals (#9).

Corrected --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am staisfied that all of my comments have been adequately addressed, so I'm happy to support. Well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - About time I started reviewing around here. The article looks pretty good.
It also serves as the place of commemoration for First World War Canadian soldiers killed, or presumed dead, in France that have no known grave. - not sure I like the flow of this sentence, remove the commas perhaps?

Agreed. remove one comma and moved the placement of the other.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was unveiled on 26 July 1936 by King Edward VIII, in the presence of French President Albert Lebrun and 50,000 or more Canadian and French veterans, and their families. - again, comma

Didn't remove comma, did a bit of text reorg. instead. Does this work: The memorial took monument designer Walter Seymour Allward eleven years to build. King Edward VIII unveiled the memorial on 26 July 1936, in the presence of French President Albert Lebrun, 50,000 or more Canadian and French veterans, and their families.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 May 1916, the German infantry attacked the British lines along a 2,000-yard (1,800 m) front in an effort to eject them from positions along the ridge.[8] - Hmm, could you replace eject with a more appropriate verb? It's not bad, I just think the word choice could be better.

Changed to force. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans successfully captured several British-controlled tunnels and mine craters before halting their advance and entrenching their positions.[8][Note 1] - redundant... they either captured it or were successful in attempting to capture it.

Addressed. Removed "successfully" --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By nightfall on 12 April, the Canadian Corps was in firm control of the ridge. - if corps is meant to be plural, then it should be were. I think this is singular, though, correct it if I'm wrong.

A Corps, as in a military formation, is always plural. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1920, the Government of Canada announced that the Imperial War Graves Commission had awarded Canada eight sites, five in France and three in Belgium, on which to erect memorials.[31] - perhaps the five in france clause would be better with an endash?

Inserted ndash before and after "five in France and three in Belgium".--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More later. ceranthor 14:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Turns out there's not really too much with the rest of the article (not surprising, the rest was excellent). If you need any additional help before FAC, feel free to ping me. ceranthor 21:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support

Refs shouldn't be all caps (even if the original source was). Refs 67, 68.

Corrected. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 could use a reference.

~~In fact a number of the notes need references, not just note 1. I'll get right on that.~~ Note work completed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last two sections are really short and make the end of the article quite choppy. Is there any way that these could be incorporated into one of the other sections?

I have folded the interpretive centre section into the site section lead. I am inclined to leave the Death of Georges Devloo section because the event got national news coverage in Canada, mentions in the Canadian House of Commons and resulted in official condolences from the Canadian Minister of Veterans Affairs. If you have improvement suggestions let me know. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once these things are taken care of, I look forward to supporting the article's A-class promotion. Dana boomer (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the responses to my comments above, as well as reading the new battle summary section, I believe this article is ready for A-class. Very nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.