Talk:In Flanders Fields/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Carcharoth (talk · contribs) 09:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Have read through the article and am currently reviewing it. It looks good so far. I should have some specific comments and a GA checklist ready for posting later today after I've looked at the article again in more detail. Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Am now aiming to post my review by tonight instead. Sorry about the delay. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple of comments here as I go through the article, followed by a GA checklist:

• The version of the article I am reviewing is 24 February 2012.
• The recent work on the article in February 2012 can be seen here.
• The version before that recent work is 14 December 2011
• On the current version of the talk page, there is a comment here from 2010 (link is to a static version of the talk page) that points out a source that claims an earlier date of composition (29 April). The May date seems established by the sources, but I thought it was worth pointing this out, and it might be worth responding on the talk page.
• "his father was a military leader Guelph" - seems to be a missing word there?
• "the German army unleashed" - is the word 'unleashed' drifting away from an encyclopedic tone?

  In this case, I think it is accurate. Chemical weapons at the time had little control. In this case, they would have released the gas and let the winds carry it. That said, I have reworded to "launched one of the first attacks", which may be equally accurate. Resolute 17:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• The quote from McCrae about the battle is almost certainly from letters he wrote at the time. It might be worth making that clear if your source confirms this, or confirming from other sources if your source is silent on this.
• A detail not included here is that Helmer's grave (or at least its identity) was lost in subsequent fighting, as he is commemorated on the Menin Gate memorial. My source for that is the McCrae chapter in 'Poets of the Great War' (1996) by the Holts - I have a copy of the 199 edition. The Helmer memorial details can be confirmed on the CWGC website.

  Is this important to note on an article about the poem? I don't have access to that book, so if it has details you feel are important, I would appreciate it if you could add them. Resolute 17:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• "As with many of the most popular works of the first world war" - First World War should be capitalised.
• The inclusion of the 1975 criticism from Fussell is valid (as that is a seminal work in literary criticism of WWI poetry ). What I was wondering is whether there is a need to include a quote on contemporary reaction to the work before bringing in the reaction of Fussell writing in the 1970s? Also, the inclusion of Fussell's criticism seems misplaced, as you bring this in and then return to detailing the publication history in the next section.

  My use of that passage was intended to reflect themes of the poem, but you are right. I should move the criticism lower. Resolute 17:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Though I have to admit to being a little unsure of what works best were in this regard. Any thoughts? Resolute 18:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  It works OK there for now. To move it, you really need to bring in other criticism. If I get time, I may suggest or dig through some sources. Carcharoth (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• "While delivering the brigade's mail, Cyril Allinson" - who is this Cyril Allinson you suddenly introduce? It would be good to say who they and Morrison and Elder are (Canadian soldiers) and whether they are part of McCrae's unit.
• "claimed that the Helmer's funeral" - remove the word 'the'?
• The account of the blow/grow debate is excellent, and should really help avoid instability and edit warring over that.
• The source I mentioned above cites the Chinese translation quip to a comment he made to his mother (again, presumably in a letter).

  The source I used says only that he "remarked" on the translations. It does not mention if the comment was made in a letter. If your source specifies that this was the case, I would again appreciate if you could add the note and change the citation. Resolute 17:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Should the anonymous bit be mentioned when you mention its publication in Punch? Do you know the first non-anonymous publication? Can you give any specific examples (i.e. book or newspaper names) of these "republications throughout the world"?

  Relocated the anonymous bit. I can't answer for certain the first non-anonymous publication, but I added that Punch credited McCrae in its index at the end of the year, so authorship would have been revealed inside a few weeks. I have no specific examples as of yet, but will try to find some (if possible) ahead of a FA run. Resolute 17:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• This quote: "make this Dominion persevere in the duty of fighting for the world's ultimate peace than all the political speeches of the recent campaign" - who said that and where? A direct citation is needed at the end.
• In the McCrae quote, does 'Fr. Canadian' mean French Canadian? It may not be immediately clear to all readers, so maybe a footnote glossing the abbreviation is needed, or an editorial insert such as '[French]' to replace or follow 'Fr.'?

  I was hoping that the context of the paragraph would have explained that, but if you're not sure, then you are correct that other readers may not be as well. I've added the editorial note. Resolute 17:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the 'Popularity' section covers the UK and USA, but the second sentence (about quotes, war bonds, recruiting efforts, and as a tool of criticism) doesn't say which country you are referring to. Was it all anglophone countries fighting in the war, just those two, or just one of them?

  I'm not a fan of the wording, but I noted that it was used "in many places". The sources I have are not more specific than that, though it is clear from the overall reaction that the poem resonated throughout the English speaking world. Resolute 17:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Do your sources say anything about reaction in the other anglophone Empire countries? Australia, New Zealand, South Africa?

  I am still searching for such reaction. It was something I already identified as wanting to find ahead of an FA run. Resolute 17:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• This bit may be wrong: "After three years on the front lines, McCrae was moved to the medical corps and stationed in Boulogne, France" - the Holt source I have says he was moved to the Canadian Medical Corps in June 1915, so the "three years on the front lines" bit seems to be wrong.

  <wincing> No, you're not wrong. I misinterpreted the timeline in my source. Corrected. Resolute 17:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I thought it must have been something like that. Though are you sure about this new bit: "he took command of the Number 3 Canadian General Hospital"? The sources I'm looking at only say that he was "promoted to lieutenant colonel in charge of medicine" and that it was the promotion to being in overall charge of the hospital that he failed to get just before his death (but he did get the 'consulting physician to the First British Army' bit, which sounds impressive but was unfortunately overtaken by events). The whole stuff with his rank and military titles confuses me - he was initially major with title of brigade surgeon. Anyway, only small amounts of this context needs to be mentioned in passing, but if it is mentioned it needs to be accurate. Carcharoth (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• An additional detail (again, I'm getting this from Holt) is that McCrae had asthma and was hospitalised with this in 1916. It also says that he was "severely depressed" and had again been subject to asthma attacks just prior to his death. It might be too much detail for this article (I may add it to the article on McCrae, including a quote from Harvey Cushing), but I thought it worth mentioning here.

  Prescott and Bassett both make mention as well. I felt it was too much personal detail on McCrae for this article though. Resolute 17:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• On McCrae's funeral, the Holt book I mentioned above says that it was an "impressive funeral with full military honours". Might be worth including.
• "named after the poem and is devoted to the First World War" - the word 'is' should be removed here (I'll do these minor copyedits, just noting them here for completeness).
• The Holt source I have refers to the Moina Michael poem as 'The Victory Emblem'. Is the title and poem history simplified here?

  I can't say, actually. Certainly our own article on it calls it "We Shall Keep the Faith". Perhaps that was an original or working title that has since fallen into disuse? Resolute 17:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• You introduce 'Madame E. Guérin' without saying who she is. Holt says she was 'French Secretary' at the 1920 convention you mention (presumably a meeting of the American Legion attended by overseas representatives?).

  Seems the sources I have (including Veterans Affairs Canada) simply refer to her as a "French woman". As with above, if you could cite that to Holt, it would be appreciated.

• Ending the article on the remembrance poppy doesn't feel quite right. I'd end with something on the poem's place and use in the modern era. For example, the poem was used in some recent British Legion mailings that I received, and the poem continues to be used widely in charity and commemoration literature, though finding a source that says that might be more difficult.

  Hmm. I am a little divided. I see your point, but at the same time, I think the remembrance poppy is (at least in Canada) the most visible modern legacy of the poem. I'll have to do some searching. Resolute 17:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, those are the comments I have on reading through the article. Not all of them need to be addressed for GA status, but may be useful for later work. I'll now run through the GA checklist and post that below. Carcharoth (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• (1) Well-written - pass

  (a) The prose is clear and concise. Apart from a few minor copyedits (now done), the spelling and grammar look fine.

  (b) The lead could possibly be expanded slightly, but is a good summary. The layout and other manual of style aspects also look OK.

• (2) Factually accurate and verifiable - pass

  (a) Referencing formatting and use looks good.

  (b) One quote not directly referenced, but am confident that can be easily fixed. I have no concerns about the reliability of the sources. One slight mis-step in the 'After three years' bit, but everything else looks fine.

  (c) No concerns about original research, all opinions and conclusions are adequately sourced.

• (3) Broad in its coverage - pass

  (a) The article covers the main aspects of this topic (coverage could be extended a bit, but that can come later).

  (b) The article's focus is fine, and background context is provided. Some of the detail could be reduced or expanded, but that is a stylistic matter.

• (4) Neutral - pass

  I'm happy to pass the article on this criterion, as there are a variety of sources used here. Only minor criticism is the lack of direct quotes on contemporary reaction to the poem, as opposed to the direct quotes for the 1970s criticism, but this doesn't massively affect the balance as it is clear the poem was very popular at the time of publication, and this aspect is easily addressed post-GA.

• (5) Stable - pass

  Noting here the excellent handling of the grow/blow matter, which provoked some instability here in the past.

• (6) Illustrated, if possible, by images - pass

  (a) The images used in this version of the article are fine in terms of copyright. File:In Flanders fields and other poems, handwritten.png has a warning sign asking for a US-specific PD tag. File:In Flanders Fields (1921) page 1.png has similar tags.

  (b) Images used here are good, with images relevant to the sections they are in. One quibble I would have is it would improve the article to give the date in the captions for the images (where known), such as the date the book memorial was erected, the date the McCrae image was taken (or even just whether it is a WWI-era photo), the date of the Clegg page, the date of the war bonds poster, and possibly saying that the poppy in the lead image has been added to the memorial for the photo (i.e. not part of the memorial).

• Additional thoughts: The opening 'rondeau' comment should be mentioned in the main body of the article and referenced there. See also the initial comments above (before the GA checklist).

• Summary: Minor stuff needs fixing (of the more detailed comments above, the most urgent would be a direct citation for the "Dominion persevere" quote, plus correcting the 'After three years' bit), but overall I'm happy to say this article passes the GA criteria. I'll sort out the paperwork this evening after reading through the article one more time. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I very much appreciate this review, especially its thoroughness as I would like to see this become a featured article. I should have addressed all of your comments above, and certainly appreciate any further changes or additions you feel are beneficial. Thanks, Resolute 17:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  No problem. I'd like to help with some suggestions post-GA. Given the responses and changes above, I'm happy passing this for GA, and I'll do that now. Any more work needed can be done in the run-up to FA, though I do think you may need to cast the net a lot wider - a run past MILHIST A-Class review to see if they can pick up any military terminology problems may help, and I'd definitely suggest posting to WWI, poetry and literary WikiProjects to see if they can help (or look at similar articles that went through FAC successfully). Carcharoth (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Appreciate the suggestions. Milhist was one I was always planning to talk to before a FA run - especially since the project is large enough that some there will hopefully find some of those non Canada/US/Great Britain responses to it. But first, a bit of a break. Thanks for the review, and the pass! Resolute 21:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)