# Talk:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial

The bot CorenSearchBot tagged Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial as a poosible duplicate article of Beaumont-Hamel. This is not the case and article Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial should have been created as an article in it's own right. A summary section is however being left on the Beaumont-Hamel article. Labattblueboy (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sub elements of the park which will likely require sub-articles
Cemeteries:

Hawthorn Ridge No. 2 Cemetery  Done
Y Ravine Cemetery  Done
Hunter's Cemetery  Done
Other Memorials located on site:

51st (Highland) Division Monument (Beaumont-Hamel)  Done
29th Division Memorial - not needed
Labattblueboy (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Creation of sub-pages complete --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi there, I am reviewing this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and as this may take more than one sitting, I am leaving my initial comments below before providing a full review to allow you to get on with them at once. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly appreciate any constructive criticism you can suggest. Also very much appreciate you taking the time to provide a review. --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


### Issues
"An impressive achievement for a largely rural island with a population of only 240,000 people" - attribute this to who said it (its probably best as a quote from Cassell).
Sentence change. Removed "impressive achievement" and combined with first sentence.  Done
"entrained" - I always though this meant getting on a train rather than being trained, check it please.
Changed to "regiment trained at various locations" instead.  Done
"increased from an initial contingent of 500 men to battalion strength," - which was?
Full battalion strength was approximately 1000 men. incorporated.  Done
"which included" - "including" is better grammatically.  Done
Does the article Danger Tree really require its own page, or would it be better incorporated into this page? It certainly should be mentioned in the Site section along with any other memorials currently omitted.
The Danger Tree article actually precedes the creation of the Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial article by about 2 years. I'll suggest a merger and see where that goes.
In the meantime, could you mention the Danger Tree in the article at the point where the development of the memorial is discussed, expanding if necessary follwing the merge?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
A Danger Tree sub-section has been created under the Site section. Likewise the work has been written and cited to a higher level than the Danger Tree article. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
*"all intents and purposes the Newfoundland Regiment had been all but wiped out" - repetition of "all".  Done 

"suffered a staggering casualty" - the point has been made already, no need for "staggering".  Done
"The Newfoundland Regiment continued to see action" - in the battle, really? With such heavy casualties? When did they return to the front line?
Yep. July 14th, taking over the front line near Auchonvillers. The regiment had been reinforced by the arrival of 127 men from the regimental depot, and totaled 11 officers and 270 men when they went back into the line. On July 17th the 88th Brigade, and the whole 29th division I believe,  moved out of line and was transferred to the Ypres sector which was at that time much quieter. Would you like this incorporated in brevity? --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be good, thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Expanded to incorporate data, citation included --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Done
"Battle of the Somme continued largely" - "largely" is redundant.  Done
"unsuccessful attack during the first day of the Battle of the Somme" - you don't need to link the battle again
nope. delinked  Done
"Newfoundland was left bereft and confused, with a sense of loss that marked an entire generation" - sounds a bit POV, is it from a quote? If not, is there a similar quote that can be attributed?
I toned it down and removed "bereft and confused", but it was essentially a quote from the ref. citation.  Done --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Move the quotation from Lisle from the end to the section about the battle (unless he said it in relation to the memorial specifically).
Quote move. Quote is from a message sent to Newfoundland in the aftermath of the battle. Please let me know if it's current placement is satisfactory.  Done --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
"Today, the Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial site serves an informal ambassadorial function" - avoid "today", instead use "The Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial site also serves".  Done
And thats it. When you have addressed the above I'll be happy to pass the article. Thanks,--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good changes. I left two supplementary notes for you to follow, but this is close to passing. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Excellent work, I see no reason not to pass this now. When the result of the merge becomes clear then make the changes, but its a procedural issue, and doesn't conflict with the GA criteria. My only remaining question was to ask if you knew what the replica of the Danger Tree was made from? Otherwise, excellent.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to conduct a review. If you have any any suggestions for improvement, I have started a peer review to see whether the current page layout is an acceptable template for battlefield memorials to which none are at a GA or higher level. Far as I know it's just an old tree / large branch that was cemented into the ground. It's not made of anything synthetic like plastic or fiberglass, just old wood. The picture on the Danger Tree article gives you an idea. I have no idea though when the replica was put into place. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Danger Tree into Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial based on Good Article Nomination suggestion. Any opposition? --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Although significantly understrength, the Newfoundland Regiment continued to see service and after taking on reinforcements was back in the front line on 14 July near Auchonvillers.(Nicholson p. 284) On 17 July the 88th Brigade was transferred to a quieter portion of the Western Front.(Nicholson p. 284)  A period of recovery coupled with additional reinforcements would eventually help the regiment return to full strength. In recognition of the unit's valour during the later battles at Ypres and Cambrai of 1917, King George V bestowed the regiment with the prefix "Royal" on 28 September, 1917, renaming them as the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.(Nicholson p. 223-224)  This was the only time in during the First World War that this honour was given and only the third time in the history of the British Army that it has been given during a time of war, the last occasion having been 101 years earlier.(Nicholson p. 223-224) 
Possible resource: Gough, Paul (2004) Sites in the imagination: the Beaumont Hamel Newfoundland Memorial on the Somme, Cultural Geographies, 11: 3  pp.235-258, ISSN 1474 - 4740 5

I've been going through a set of First World War memorials and adding inscriptions (with sources) where missing. I've been having difficulties with this one, but I eventually found a picture here. That is the central one of the three plaques, and the inscription is just legible."To the Glory of God and in perpetual remembrance of those officers and men of the Newfoundland Forces who gave their lives by Land and Sea in the Great War and who have no known graves. 'Let them give glory unto the Lord and declare His praise in the islands' - Isiah 42:12" I'll add it to the article, but if a source could be found, that would obviously be better than relying on a Flickr picture. The headers of the other two panels (to left and right) say (at right) "Newfoundland Royal Naval Reserve" and (at left) "Newfoundland Mercantile Marines". Not so central to the article, but still nice to be able to refer to, is this picture, which is the information plaque at the site. One thing that would also be good to know is whether there are any other inscriptions on or around this memorial. Oh, and I found this, which is one of the other memorials referred to in the article (this picture is of the one at Bowring Park). It seems to have only been unveiled in 2009. Would be nice to have details of the exact location and dates of unveiling of these other memorials, and to what degree they replicate this one, which is presumably the original one. More on all that is here. Note that the caribou at Bowring Park (at least) looks quite different. (My mistake - it is only the angle that makes it look different). Also, a news story here, which has more details (in particular: "One plaque is devoted to the regiment and features 591 names. The others list 114 people from the Newfoundland Royal Naval Reserve and 115 from the Merchant Marine." - those numbers would be good in the article, plus something about the memorial tablets being replicated and the timing (July 2009) and costs ($330,000) of that - I won't push it and ask how much the original caribou memorials cost, though knowing how much the memorial site land was purchased for, from the "250 landowners" would be nice). Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Added to 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC) and 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Final suggestion: this source gives the other five locations for the caribou memorials as Beaumont Hamel, France (this one); Gueudecourt, France (Gueudecourt (Newfoundland) Memorial); Monchy-le-Preux, France (Monchy-le-Preux (Newfoundland) Memorial); Masnieres, France; Courtrai, Belgium, and Bowring Park, Newfoundland. Is that level of detail needed in this article? It would be quite nice to have co-ordinates for all of them, which could be used to generate a map showing their location relative to this one. I also noted that visiting these memorials seems to be referred to as the 'Caribou Trail', which is the phrase that appears on the stamp! And I now see the two other caribou memorials with articles are mentioned in the template at the bottom of the article (but because it was collapsed, neither me nor anyone else was likely to have found those links). I'll mention them in the article so they are more visible. Carcharoth (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did a copy edit of the whole article here. I hope those changes are mostly OK. There was one sentence I couldn't fix, the penultimate one: "Lastly, the six caribou memorials and the National War Memorial erected following the First World War, and the establishment of the preserved battlefield park at Beaumont-Hamel which is visited by thousands of tourist a year." It seems to be a bit unfinished, though the finish to the article in the final sentence is nice. Carcharoth (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629103113/http://www.iwm.org.uk:80/server/show/nav.00o003003001004 to http://www.iwm.org.uk/server/show/nav.00o003003001004
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305201900/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_09/iss_2/CAJ_vol9.2_04_e.pdf to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_09/iss_2/CAJ_vol9.2_04_e.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The article seems to have an error re: the size according to Canada's Historic Places: 

 Official recognition refers to the whole 25-hectare site, its component parts including the remains of the battlefield and the war memorial in their existing spatial relationships. ..... Determined to erect a permanent memorial to their dead, the Government of Newfoundland acquired a 25-hectare portion of the battlefield in the early 1920s. ... Boundary description:  The designated place consists of the 25-hectare site as it was when the Government of Newfoundland acquired the site in the 1920s. http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/beaumonthamel.aspx

Other articles indicate the government of Canada owns 80 acres, but the above suggests that the designated Memorial is smaller. 
Peter K Burian (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the source cited for the size but I don't see any such discussion in that article. 

 Jacqueline Hucker (2012). "Monuments of the First and Second World Wars". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Foundation. Retrieved 2012-07-26.

Peter K Burian (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I will find a source for us..... I have been to the park and the park and the monument are two different things.... the monument resides in the park. I will Email   Tim Cook and see if he has an answer for me.....I am sure he's writen about this....just not sure what book.--Moxy (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Veteran Affair Canada (the site manager) presently states the site is presently 30-hectares but this detail is burried.[1] The Monument Board of Canada, in the historical designation of 1996 make mention of 25-hectares.[2] I don't have access to Nicholson's Fighting Newfoundlander but if someone else does  p. 518 might say something on the subject. I wouldn't generally see Historica as a accurate source on such a mundane fact, as Historica isn't exactly the pinnacle of source quality and normally acts as a aggregate. However Jacqueline Hucker is an architectural historian; I don't know the source but could be interesting.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)