Talk:Black Hills National Cemetery

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Hills National Cemetery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TCMemoire (talk · contribs) 10:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 02:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Status

• Probably won't finish this up for a few days.

• Placed on hold based on outstanding issues, but still in process of adding more.

• Still finding outstanding issues. Fixing minor ones as I go.

Infobox

• Looks good so far.

Lead

• Prominent features of the cemetery include its committal shelter, where memorial services and events are held; and the Avenue of Flags leading up to it

• That's an unusual transition using a semicolon, as it's intended for use with an independent clause without a coordinating conjunction. Both sides of the semicolon should be complete sentences. Think about rewriting this or just using a comma instead. For example, "Prominent features of the cemetery include its committal shelter, where memorial services and events are held, and the Avenue of Flags leading up to it."

• Changed to comma.

History

Establishment

• The cemetery was established from land that once formed part of Fort Meade...

• Reference spot check on entire first paragraph confirmed.

• Although Fort Meade had its own cemetery dating back to the 19th century, a number of factors prevented the VA from repurposing it...

• Reference spot check on entire second paragraph confirmed.

• The search for a new plot thusly continued.

• No strong objections, but I'm fairly certain "thusly" is not needed here, and is considered somewhat controversial in writing guides. I'm fairly liberal when it comes to writing styles, but I think some people might otherwise object to it. When you remove the word, it appears that it was never needed in the first place. One way to deal with this is to merge it with the following sentence. "The search for a new plot continued until 1948, when a 105.9-acre (42.9 ha) area of land was identified south of Sturgis for the new burial ground."
• One way that I tend to look at this kind of thing is to ask myself, "would the reader be surprised by this word in this way"? I think a modern reader might find it unexpected.

• I went ahead and changed this.

• Reference spot check on entire third paragraph failed. I was unable to verify some of the information in this paragraph. Please look at your notes and sources. For example, I did not see "105.9-acre (42.9 ha)" in the cited source, nor "Interstate 90".

• Ok, I think I solved the I-90 issue. Apparently the sources only say "US 14", which is why I was confused. As it turns out, Wikipedia confirms that "I-90 enters South Dakota in Lawrence County as a four-lane divided highway. It enters concurrently with US Highway 14 (US 14)." We should link to Interstate 90 to solve this problem. As for the "105.9-acre (42.9 ha)", I'm still looking for this.

• I've added a link to the first instance to clear up the confusion I felt and removed the link to the second.

• Note, I'm continuing my concern with the "105.9-acre" figure below, in the section titled "National Register of Historic Places"

• The first seven burials took place in private ceremonies held in September 1948...

• Reference spot check on entire fourth paragraph confirmed.

• This more than doubled the available space in the cemetery.

• Are you doing WP:CALC here? If so, you will want to turn this into a footnote and just show your work. Citing a source from 2003 is odd and confusing and I couldn't exactly verify the material. Or perhaps you just have the wrong source cited here, in which case just fix it.

Naming

• For an unknown reason, paperwork filed in June 1948 named the new cemetery as the Fort Meade National Cemetery.

• I don't think that particularly source says the reason is unknown, although there does appear to be some controversy that occurred. The cited source explains part of the reason on p. 8: "The Army dedicated the cemetery as the Fort Meade National Cemetery on October 3, 1948, due to its location on the former Fort Meade military reservation." More to your point about the unknown, the source goes on to say "At some point between Horkan/s 1947 visit [where he suggested it be named Black Hills National Cemetery] and the dedication [your sources about the dedication still show it being named Fort Meade National Cemetery] the new facility was named Fort Meade National Cemetery per Department of the Army". So perhaps it wasn't unknown? I think you could shed some light on this by getting a hold of Horkan's "Report of Visit to Fort Meade South Dakota" and citing his recommendation, although that's not necessary. But I do think asserting "unknown" might not be accurate unless the sources themselves say "unknown", which the cited source in question does not. However, there is additional support for your assertion that the change was unknown, because later the source says "The army reasoned that the name change was instituted to avoid confusion with the post cemetery that still existed on the Fort Meade reservation", which implies that Horkan's recommendation was either ignored or not acted upon. It would be great to have something more definitive.

• Aside from the confusion and ambiguity over the use of the word "unknown", which I didn't find in the cited source, reference spot checks are confirmed for this section.

Dedication

• Reference spot check confirmed.

Later history and expansions

• By 1974, 5,000 burials had taken place

• I've changed this to "approximately 5,000 burials" per the cited source.

• Several expansions and developments have taken place in almost every decade since the cemetery's establishment, with improvements beginning almost immediately after its opening. The Omaha district of the Corps of Engineers oversaw most of the early developments.

• This statement is supported by sources other than the one used, which is from 1951 and only discusses the first phase of a beautification program.

• Pump house was also spelled pumphouse. I've fixed it for consistency to the Mehls (2016) preference for "pump house"
• Works to find a reliable underground water source to support more vegetation were given priority

• I just bought a new brand of coffee and it doesn't seem to be kicking in, so I apologize if I'm wrong here, but the use of "works" here just seems off to me. It's probably ok, but it sounds a bit too informal. I'm going to change it to "The search for a reliable underground water source..." if you don't object.

• one subtracted drilling company went bankrupt as a result

• Did you mean "subcontracted"?

• Fixed. If that's not what you wanted, take another look.

• The pump house was finally completed in 1955.

• Did you notice that there was some discrepancy about this in the source? I'm guessing it was a typo and that the pump house was completed in 1955, not the other date?

• The administration building was constructed at that time, and the committal shelter soon followed in 1978, in the space once reserved for the chapel.

• This is a bit clunky to read and it could mean that the admin building was built in the space where the chapel was planned or that the committal shelter was. I realize you meant the former, but in case you meant the latter or if someone reads it that way, maybe consider rewriting it.

National Register of Historic Places

• The entire cemetery[b] was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on May 17, 2016, under criterion A for historical importance

• Footnote [b] says: "At the time of listing, the cemetery had not yet been expanded to its present size and measured only 105.9 acres (42.9 ha)." But the source cited here and elsewhere (Mehls 2016), says "The cemetery includes approximately 105.4 acres". I'm aware that other sources say 105.9, but we need to cite the current figure if the old one is wrong. FWIW, I ran into this same problem when I wrote the article on Pillar Point Bluff. What I found was that 95% of the sources had the wrong size of the park. This was because the park was acquired in small parcels over a very long period of time, and when it was finally complete, only a few sources had the final size listed. It was an odd situation.

Description

• this original plot now includes the administration building and the entrance plaza. After the 2018 expansion, the property now covers approximately 222 acres (90 ha), although not all land has been developed.

• Couldn't verify this in the cited source.

• Those eligible for burial in the cemetery are veterans, active service members, their spouses, and dependent children

• The cited source alludes to this, but doesn't actually come out and say it. Any possibility of using another one? I think I saw it elsewhere in another one of your other cites.

• Each service member is automatically granted two grave plots, one each for them and their spouse. Up to two other people can be buried in the shared plot.

• Again, the cited source alludes to this, but doesn't actually say this. We want to get in the habit of using sources so that they explicitly support the material. Also, this source is from 1951, so may not be the best one for this purpose. See if you can find another, preferably newer one.

• Reference spot checks are confirmed for the remaining introduction to the description section and for the remainder of the facilities subsection

Layout

• hold cenotaphs dedicated to service members who have gone missing in action (MIA) and whose bodies have not been recovered or identified

• Maybe I'm missing it, but why do you cite the National Cemetery Administration here? I looked at the cite and don't see anything there

Memorials

• As I've said elsewhere, I'm not a fan of the way the list of memorials is cited in the introductory paragraph, although, there are reasons to do it that way. For example, this style works best when the list that follows consists of short, single line entries that are cited to only one source. Here, you are using two, and one may or may not support all of them. I would recommend just using the standard citation style here and adding the sources to the end of each sentence or paragraph. I know it's not as clean and neat, but I think it would help.

Notable interments

• I think the sourcing should be made more explicit here. The initial source you cite for "Other notable graves include", only directly supports Windolph, Case, Ellsworth, King, and Wolf Guts. As for the additional four internments, I found mention of Abourezk and Janklow in the database system (which is a different link), but no indication of notability (not saying they are not notable, just not seeing the explicit source). I couldn't directly find anything about Dave Bald Eagle and John Charles Waldron. Perhaps the sourcing should be looked at and tightened up a bit here?

• I think this needs to be addressed. One way forward is to start moving the sources inline rather than at the end of the paragraph. I just attempted to find a source for Dave Bald Eagle, and it looks like there are some out there, but they still aren't in this article (nor are they in his bio).

See also

• Although it's not mandatory, I think an effort could be made to subsume some or all of these links into the body.

• Our article on Hot Springs National Cemetery says "The United States Department of Veterans Affairs manages it through the Black Hills National Cemetery". I'm not exactly sure what that entails, but if true, then it would make sense to include it in the body rather than the see also.

• I think this is the way forward. There's a State of South Dakota website document that says the following: "Black Hills National Cemetery is also responsible for the Hot Springs and Fort Meade National Cemeteries though they are closed to new interments. We maintain the grounds and upkeep of both sites."[1]

• I think you could easily link to List of cemeteries in South Dakota in various places in the body. For example, in the lead you write: " It was the first—and currently, the only active—national cemetery in South Dakota." You could link it there.
• National Register of Historic Places listings in Meade County, South Dakota already appears in the {{National Register of Historic Places in South Dakota}} footer, but I think it might be possible to include the body, perhaps in the above section "National Register of Historic Places"?

References

• When you refer to multiple pages, use pp.

• Fixed.

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Minor grammar issues.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   MOS:EMBED may or may not work here, but the sources need to be tightened up in either case. See concerns with sourcing in notable internment section.

   See also could be merged into body.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   "If one page number is being referred to, use the abbreviation p. for page. If there are multiple pages use pp. to represent pages". Fixed.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Failed spot check in history section. See above.

   Failed spot check in notable internment section. See above.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No OR.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyvio detected using Earwig

   Spot checks reveal no issues.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   General scope.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Focused.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No neutrality issues identififed

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Free content rationales

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Captions have inconsistent formatting in "Later history and expansions". One way to do this is to use the date and the text in the same way

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Placing on hold due to minor concerns detailed above. More issues to be added.

   Issues now addressed. Good work

@Viriditas: Thank you for the review. Apologies for the delay, I had a chronic illness flareup and haven't been well enough to edit (the one I made on the 3rd sat in a browser tab for 4 days). I will get to work addressing these issues over the next couple of days. – TCMemoire 15:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There’s no hurry at all, so please take your time. I will extend the time limit to however long is needed, and I will try to help address the points above. I will be adding a few more things in a bit. As you can see, the concerns are minor and should be easily addressed. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I implemented some fixes and changed some wording for clarity, including:

• Replaced For an unknown reason with However, in the second sentence of the Naming subsection. I'll be on the lookout for anything I can find to clarify the name confusion.
• Added source for the Several expansions... wording but removed in almost every decade...
• I also noticed the 105.9 vs. 105.4 discrepancy. I found two sources for the 105.9 acre figure, the 1974 booklet from the VA and the 2019 expansion press release from the VA. To be honest, I'm inclined to rely on the VA number over the NRHP number, as I find the nomination forms to generally be less reliable... although it seems this form was completed by a VA staff member. (Sure would be nice if they'd included a measured map of the district...) What do you recommend?
• Added sources for each notable burial.
• RE: See also: I'd prefer to keep the NRHP one, as listing it there is the standard for NRHP articles; I think the cemeteries link is fine where it is too, as I can't make it comfortably fit in the body. Wikilinking national cemetery in South Dakota to a list of *all* cemeteries would be misleading, and I wouldn't want to split the adjective-noun "national cemetery", per MOSLINK.

I'll do more in the next couple of days, bed time for me. – TCMemoire 23:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@TCMemoire: Thanks for your patience. I believe I have addressed all the main issues up above. As for your questions, please use your best judgment and do things the way you prefer. If I have a problem, I will let you know. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks so much for the words of encouragement! More fixes:

• I didn't notice the 1995 vs. 1955 pump house discrepancy but agree the 1955 date has to be a typo, based on contributing status and where it appears chronologically in the narrative. I did a search on Newspapers to see if I could corroborate this, but nothing popped up (a pump house isn't exactly exciting news, even for South Dakota).
• Added sentence about BHNC being the only open national cemetery in the state, which appeared in the lead but not the body.
• Fixed sourcing issues in Description, Layout, and Memorials sections. Did some rephrasing as well to fit sources.
• Added photograph of Richard Ellsworth's headstone to the Notable interments section. Whoohoo, public domain military photographs!
• Added Hot Springs National Cemetery into the body and removed it from See also.

I think this is the end of the suggestions currently provided; I believe the only outstanding one is the acreage issue. – TCMemoire 17:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@TCMemoire: Can you take a quick look at the review and see if everything has been addressed? I have added a lot up above over the last several days. It looks like the acreage issue could be acknowledged with a simple footnote explaining the discrepancy? Or we could just ignore it, but it might come up again. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the footnote has been added. So please just confirm the rest of the points up above have been addressed. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I have just now clarified the discrepancy in Footnote B in the National Register of Historic Places section; please take a look and let me know if you are happy with that wording. Otherwise, everything else has been addressed. – TCMemoire 10:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I just took another look. I will go ahead and pass. Just FYI, the format of the captions in the "later history and expansions" section is somewhat unusual, and while I don’t have a problem with it, someone else may dispute your use of grammar and punctuation here. Viriditas (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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.