Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Spalding War Memorial

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

Here's another war memorial. This one isn't covered in as many sources as some of the others but it is covered in greater depth because of its interesting background and how the way its history is interwoven with the pain felt by a country and by one aristocratic family in the wake of the First World War. It's the third of several war memorial articles I'm hoping will reach featured article status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day Harry, nice work. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do the images need a Freedom of panorama tag?
- I don't think so, otherwise we'd need to tag literally millions of files on Commons; besides, Lutyens has been dead since 1945 so the design is likely out of copyright.
the paragraph beginning "McLaren approached the council with her proposal..." appears to be uncited, or is it cited to [1][6]? If so, I'd suggest maybe duplicating the refs earlier to make it clearer
- I've duplicated the citations to make it clearer.
  - Yes, that works. Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:LAYOUT the Commons link should be in the last section of the article, not the See also section
- This arbitrary requirement has bugged me for a long time so I've raised it at the MoS talk page.
  - No worries, not a war stopper. Probably just have to have it cleared up either way for FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A central panel bearing further names was added in 2015..." do we know why further names were added? Were these soldiers who subsequently died of wounds?
- The source doesn't say; it's possible they died of wounds but more likely they were forgotten (due to poor record-keeping) or were omitted (eg deserters).

AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, Rupert! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ Looks in great shape, a few comments though:

The references heading is the wrong place (should be ahead of the citations subheading).
- Hmm. This was the result of an edit last night that left it hanging in the middle of nowhere; I've put it back where it was.
OK, this could be pedantic, I'm not sure, but shouldn't the Skelton citation be Skelton & Gliddon?
- I usually just go with the primary author for footnotes (cf. Pevsner); it's only to identify the work.
"Barbara McLaren later remarried to Bernard...": this grammatically correct? Shouldn't it be "Barbara McLaren was later remarried to Bernard..."
- I don't honestly know; I'll have to take advice...

Hope that helps. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, Zawed. Dank is my go-to copy-editor ... Dan, do you have an opinion on the question above? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question. I'd go with "was later married to" or "later married"; some readers will assume wrongly from "remarried" that she's marrying him for a second time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've just gone with "married"; it means the reader has to infer that its her second marriage but I can live that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, have added my support now. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the link checker, one of your external links may be iffy, can you take a look and advise? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @TomStar81: Looks like the URL changed; I've updated it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.