Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/List of Mexican-American War monuments and memorials

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

List of Mexican–American War monuments and memorials edit

(
)

Created by Zigzig20s (talk), Doncram (talk), and Carptrash (talk). Nominated by Zigzig20s (talk) at 22:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC).

  • Comment - Please see citation # 11 for "Escobedo p. 158". It's a sfn template that is not pointing to anything. I notice on the the talk page that it is from "Helen Escobedo in the book Mexican Monuments: Strange Encounters". Could you make a Bibliography section and list the book? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Maile66: Can we move this forward please?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Zigzig20s I wasn't doing a review. I just made a comment, and the issue was taken care of, as mentioned. Someone else will do the review. — Maile (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest you propose another hook as the proposed hook sounds uninteresting and honestly even like a tautology. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was interesting that there were monuments on both sides of the border, because Mexico lost the war and losers don't usually have monuments to celebrate a war... Perhaps we could add that to the hook?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: Well considering Confederate statutes (controversially) exist, it's not unprecedented for "losers" to have monument celebrating a war; I'm pretty sure there are other parallel cases around the world too. As such, both hooks have been struck; perhaps a different hook has to be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
It is a bit more complicated because of convict leasing and Jim Crow but I see what you mean.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Doncram and User:Carptrash: Any suggestions please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I previously thought something could be said about how little memorialized this war was, before war memorials became more of a thing (I don't know what the source was, but somewhere in Confederate War memorial controversy I saw mention that war memorials became a thing in Germany in the 1870s or 1880s or 1890s, then the trend came to the U.S. with civil war memorials). [It was source 2 linked below...about post-Franco-Prussion War memorials. --18:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)] Similar to that idea is the poor treatment of the dead, as covered by Steven R. Butler, per this cached version (source 1) of "Burying the dead" summary of his master's thesis (which was published as a book and can be purchased). There existed no provisions for war dead to be brought back for burial at government expense, which came later.
Encyclopedia.com about war memorials doesn't even mention Mexican-American war, but suggests less honorable wars like that don't get memorialized much. It seems it is less memorialized than other wars, but a source stating that is needed.
How about the cemetery in Mexico City being the first U.S. national cemetery anywhere? Source being that cached source 1. Something like: "Did you know that...among memorials of the Mexican-American War is the monument at the first U.S. national cemetery, which is in Mexico City?"
Or something like: "DYK that ... although policy and practicalities precluded bringing home U.S. war dead from the Mexican-American War, as would become standard in U.S. foreign wars later, there were Mexican-American War monuments and memorials established in X number of U.S. states by year 1900?". --Doncram (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, how about use this quite decent source 2 to support: "DYK that ... while the American Civil War 20 years later became the first U.S. war that was heavily memorialized, there were U.S. efforts to memorialize the Mexican-American War, including creating the first U.S. national cemetery, which is located in Mexico City?"
Or perhaps better, use the two sources together to support: "DYK that ... while the American Civil War 13 years later featured the first widespread effort anywhere in the world to disinter battlefield dead and rebury them in central cemeteries after the war, (source 2) memorialization of the dead in the 1846-48 Mexican-American War included first creation of such a U.S. national cemetery in Mexico City with 750 reinterments during 1850-53? (source 1 and other)"
--Doncram (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Trying to make that shorter: "DYK that ... the first post-war widespread effort to reinter battlefield dead to central, national cemeteries was after the American Civil War, efforts to memorialize the dead in the 1846-48 Mexican-American War included the first creation of a U.S. national cemetery, in Mexico City, with 750 reinterments during 1850-53?". --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if that's true because Trafalgar Square is a memorial to the Battle of Trafalgar of 1805 (part of the Napoleonic Wars), isn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I just modified my wording above, and then tried to shorten it. But if you mean there were previous examples of memorials and reinterments of bodies, sure there have been cases, but apparently on small scale. The source 2, which seems learned enough and cites learned sources, is saying that while there have been occasional monuments/memorials of some kind since at least 800 A.D. there were not widespread memorials in Europe before the F-P War and not in the U.S. before the ACW, and also that there were not widespread reinterments in any war before the ACW. The reinterment of about 750 American dead's bones from battlegrounds around Mexico City to the 2 acre cemetery, during 1850-53, seems likely to be the first effort by the U.S. and was just one effort. And we have a source saying this was not widespread. I am sure this suggested DYK is too long, but hope it can be refined and become acceptable. --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The last hook you suggested is too convoluted. We want something snappy and we want to avoid mentioning the Civil War I think. Maybe "DYK that efforts to memorialize the dead in the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 included the first creation of a U.S. national cemetery outside national borders in Mexico City, with 750 reinterments in 1850-53?". It's a bit convoluted but not as much as the other ones. What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this list is of interest to you and me and to potential readers because of the controversy about American Civil War memorials, but I agree it can be too convoluted to address ACW in a DYK hook. The hook you suggest is fine by me. Perhaps refine that as: "DYK that efforts to memorialize the dead in the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 included the first creation of a U.S. national cemetery outside national borders, the Mexico City National Cemetery, with 750 reinterments in 1850-53?". User:Zigzig20s, do let's ensure the list-article supports that DYK. Note the assertion that MCNC is a "U.S. national cemetery" needs to be supported as being true, as being said to be that by sources, while it is not officially one of the 147 official ones in United States National Cemetery System. [It was later declared to be an official one.] Authority to create official ones apparently was in an act passed by the U.S. Congress on July 17, 1862. But the U.S. Congress did approve the MCNC purchase and expenses in reinterments and monument-building. --Doncram (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5: What about ALT2 please?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: @Doncram: ALT2 exceeds the 200 character limit. I think the part about the Mexico City National Cemetery having 750 interments is unnecessary; the hook should merely emphasize that the Mexico City National Cemetery is the first (unofficial?) U.S. national cemetery outside the US. ALT2 is almost acceptable, it just needs to follow my suggestions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

In addition, there's a "citation needed" template in the article; said statement needs to be sourced ASAP. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Doncram: Do you mind if we trim it please? And for the CN issue, we need an RS...Zigzig20s (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5: What about ALT3? And I've fixed the CN issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Zigzig20s: ALT3 reflects my proposals best so it is tentatively approved. As for the article itself, it meets the newness and length requirements. Images are all freely licensed. Only two things left to do before I give my approval: first, the cemetery being a "national cemetery" or being established before the establishment of the US national cemeteries system requires a citation, and a QPQ needs to be provided. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Doncram: Could you please add the RS for this assertion? I don't know what you found it. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Zigzig20s, about the act of congress in 1862, i was relying upon Wikipedia article about the list of national cemeteries, which doesn't mention the Mexico City one and needs to be developed, but I found and added source now to this MWA article (from the National Cemetery Administration itself) stating that "Counted among the first 73 national cemeteries was an American military cemetery established in Mexico City, Mexico on Sept. 28, 1850, as a result of the Mexican War." ("History and Development of the National Cemetery Administration" (PDF). U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs / National Cemetery Administration. Retrieved April 12, 2018. ) That source goes on about all of the national cemeteries, including military ones in Europe established during/after World War I, and so on... the Mexico City one was the first-created as far as I can tell from skimming/searching, and it was therefore also the first one overseas. Knock on wood, I think the hook is supported per requirements here. --Doncram (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Now that the information in the article has been sourced, all that's left before this is approved is for Zigzig20s to provide a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on a review...Zigzig20s (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5: I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Non-science.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
And with that QPQ verified, this is good to go. I've struck ALT2 for the reasons I gave above, so only ALT3 is approved for promotion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but am having trouble finding the inline cite for the hook fact in the article. The lead contains an overlong quote that should be paraphrased. I added a few "citation needed" tags. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
About a CN tag within a note, I don't think it was necessary...everything was covered with sources footnoted in the article. But I tried adding copies of the footnotes into the note, found that didn't work, then put in external links to the sources covered in the footnotes, which makes it look like there are more sources now. This has not really improved the article, IMHO, but okay, done. I think the hook fact is now even more obviously/explicitly supported in the article.
About a CN tag about a Kentucky memorial, I removed the tag. There is nothing controversial asserted. All info from the linked article about the Kentucky memorial, which has sources that are offline. I can't go to the original sources myself. Non-controversial stuff does not need to be footnoted unless it is challenged. If someone seriously challenges the fact of the existence of the memorial and that it relates to 17 burials and whatever, then go ahead and delete the whole item or comment it out. We can add it back later after this DYK is over. This is not how DYK is supposed to work, though. Whatever, this has nothing to do with the DYK hook. --Doncram (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
About a quote being "overly long" and requiring paraphrasing, that is a matter of editorial opinion/discretion. The explicit quoting does help support the DYK hook; I wouldn't want to change it then find DYK editors complaining they wanted more explicit support for the hook again. I wouldn't object though if someone wants to replace by paraphrasing, but this is not an issue for DYK review in my opinion. --Doncram (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Doncram: my reason for adding "citation needed" tags had nothing to do with readers challenging the information, but with DYK's Rule D2, which calls for at least one citation in each paragraph. In this case: at least one citation in each line of the list. The paragraph about the Kentucky War Memorial needs at least one cite; this could be for anything, like the date of unveiling. The second entry under "Mexico City", the Heroic Cadets Memorial, also needs a cite.
Okay, User:Yoninah, thank you for explaining. I was not aware of that DYK requirement; I did 50 or so DYKs many years ago, don't recall it as a rule, but maybe it just never came up. I just commented out the Kentucky War Memorial item, with hidden comment note "Item commented out for duration of DYK expected April/May 2018, because we can't tell which offline sources in Kentucky War Memorial support these statements. It would be okay for these statements to be here, supported by info in the article, but not during DYK, where a rule requires every paragraph or item to have an explicit source apparently." We will keep it hidden (i.e. effectively out of the article, until after a DYK has finished running on the main page. Knock on wood. About the Heroic Cadets Memorial, it looks like you just did add a cite, or at least there is a cite there now, so I hope this is okay now. --Doncram (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Based on your edits, I don't understand why the ALT3 hook calls it "the first U.S. national cemetery outside national borders". The article says it is "the first U.S. national cemetery", period. I admit that the hook fact about being a national cemetery outside the U.S. intrigued me, but it's not mentioned in the article. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I happen to think that it is a more interesting thing to say. It is a true fact obviously if you agree that it is the first national cemetery, but that could be disputed (spending for it was indeed approved by congress and the president, but, as explained at the article, it was before there was an organized, officially named National Cemetery program; a number of Civil War cemeteries were named official National Cemeteries before this was retroactively declared to be an official one in 1870 or so). There were no other official ones (or even any unofficial candidates AFAICT) outside the U.S. before this was declared to be an official one. So the hook is true and undisputable. I think it is better to avoid making a hook about it being the first overall, subject to dispute. Thanks. I do hope this is okay now. --Doncram (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting to note that the Arlington National Cemetery was established a few years later, in 1864. Maybe we could create a chronological list of all the U.S. national cemeteries based on Category:United States national cemeteries. Also the sentence, "The first national cemeteries were set up after the United States Civil War by Edmund Burke Whitman.", in United States National Cemetery System appears to be wrong. Unless the Mexico City National Cemetery is not officially a U.S. national cemetery?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes that statement is "wrong" or at least needs to be explained there, i.e that it was the first official one created after the National Cemetery program was officially created, despite the fact that there already was a Congress-approved cemetery in Mexico City that was already a national cemetery in effect, and was declared to be one officially later, in 1870(?). --Doncram (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
OK. Does it matter for this nomination, or can we fix this later please? Are we finally good to go?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Doncram: Can you please help with this? You're the one who came up with it. User:Yoninah: I thought the first one was fine but User:Narutolovehinata5 found it boring, not sure why...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
But Mexico lost.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The Confederacy lost the U.S. Civil War, and we all know how that turned out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I know that's the point you made earlier, but with convict labor and Jim Crow they did not think they'd lost. And the hook does not say they were the only losers who celebrated their loss. (Maybe the Confederates took a hint from the Mexicans?) Anyway, do you have another hook you'd like to suggest to be more productive please?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Zigzig20s: Personally I think ALT3 is actually fine, Yoninah's concern seems to be less about the hook itself but more that the hook fact isn't clearly stated in the article. The solution would this is of course to add an explanation of this somewhere; Yoninah, I have to note that the information is already included in the article as a footnote. As possible alternatives, how about:
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I also think ALT3 is a great hook. But the only sourced statement in the article says it's the first U.S. national cemetery. It doesn't say first U.S. national cemetery outside national borders. The footnote doesn't say this, and isn't sourced, either. Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s and Doncram: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think ALT3b will do the trick. Do you want me to approve it? Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes please.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
That's fine with me too. P.S. Yoninah could be right that the list-article doesn't exactly state the previously-discussed hook. It could be remedied by pasting the hook text into the article, with links to the two sources, much discussed above, which in fact do support it, at least with some interpretation. But this is moot if ALT3b goes ahead, which is fine by me. --Doncram (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • OK. But still, what are you going to do about the uncited line for Heroic Cadets Memorial, Chapultepec Park? The Kentucky War Memorial entry is "commented out", but still appears in the article with some dashes after it. And the source for the sentence in the lead, footnote 1, states it was "one of the first", not the first; this needs to be adjusted. Yoninah (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry about my editing mistake in commenting out Kentucky item, now fixed. About Heroic Cadets, there was a source in that item and I thought that meant it was okay by you. In case you mean about an unsourced sentence that concluded the item ("Nearby is the Niños Heroes Metro Station, named after the Niños Heroes") I just commented that out. --Doncram (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • And I changed in lede so that it says "one of the first U.S. national cemeteries". --Doncram (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I know we're all eager to get this on the main page, but a few more careful tweaks and we'll be finished.
  • Doncram, I'm looking at the second entry under "Mexico City": Heroic Cadets Memorial, Chapultepec Park, also known as the Niños Héroes monument. Can you add a cite in there, perhaps one that confirms its alternate name?
  • Doncram, I also think it's unwise to comment out the Kentucky War Memorial. Some knowledgeable reader is going to see this article on the main page and wonder why it's not there. As I said above, all you need is a simple inline cite for the date of establishment, 1850, and the whole paragraph can stay. Per Rule D2 you only need one cite per paragraph, not one cite per line. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate, Yoninah, that you like all of us are a volunteer here. But I think these requirements are unnecessary, and are not properly part of DYK process. It would be fine/great if you would raise concerns at the article Talk page instead. I am obviously not against improving an article, and it would be a shame not to capture legitimate concerns/suggestions. But as I think you should understand by now, you are asking for sources to be provided right here/now when the sources used in articles were offline and are not available to me, to support obviously true facts which are not questioned in the corresponding articles. And you are even asking for new material to be added (or deleted/commented out material to be restored) with sources that are not known to be available. This is unreasonable, is not part of DYK process as I understand it. Nonetheless I will respond:
  • Okay, I restored a short item about the Kentucky War Memorial, with the best/only fragment of info from its article that is clearly specifically supported by a specific source which I copied over (although the source is not online and I cannot consult it myself), namely that the memorial was funded by $15,000 appropriated by a Kentucky state legislature act of February 25, 1848. This leaves the list-article item in odd position of having no connection to the Mexican-American War stated, because I have no specific source about that, but readers can presumably click to the article where MAW connection is explained. Again, after the DYK is over i will restore information about how the memorial is indeed partly about the MAW.
  • And okay about the Niños Héroes monument, i re-named that item as the Obelisco a los Niños Héroes (currently a redlink) with this source and I further mentioned with source that Harry Truman visited there.[strike that, because I don't for sure know which Niños Héroes monument he visited.] That is indubitably a MAW monument. The obelisk is just one of a number of Niños Héroes monuments even within Mexico City alone AFAICT; it clearly looks different than another captioned as "Heroic Cadets Memorial" in first photo of current Niños Héroes article, but I have no specific source saying what that is called (although it is obviously a monument to the Niños Héroes and it is obviously quite reasonable to call it a "Heroic Cadets Memorial"). Whatever.
If someone wants to insist that the photographed one be added to this article, or any further extra demands are made, then I don't know what, i suppose one has to look for processes to appeal against the crime of DYK withholding. Again, I believe all is well-intentioned, but I certainly will hesitate about participating in any DYK about a list-article in the future.
Or let me put it this way: if you want something to be added to the list-article, especially involving unspecificed sources that you think should be available, please add it yourself. --Doncram (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Everything looks ready now. ALT3b hook ref verified and cited inline. Rest of review per Narutolovehinata5. ALT3b good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Reams of discussion above and apparently nobody thought to run DYKcheck on this, because if they had done, they would have found that the article is 300 characters too short. Not only that, but the first source for the hook just goes to a generic page,[1] what am I supposed to do with that? I have therefore been obliged to pull the nomination so that somebody can address the issues. Gatoclass (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Right, this was nominated 15 March 2018 and this delay, after all the rest, is bogus IMHO. Just post the darn thing.
The source has two links, one to that "generic page" by "url=" link and one, an "archiveurl=" to this archived version which has the content. I think the "generic page" originally had the content when this DYK process started; I don't know . But okay, I just replaced the url= link by what was at the archiveurl= link. If it was wrong for me to do that for some reason, please give very clear instructions as to what is preferred, as if you were talking to a child please. Also, I don't believe that a live URL is required for a source at all. It is not, or should not, be a valid reason to stop a DYK in progress, particularly not an already-approved one.
About DYKCheck, i had that installed but it doesn't pop up, i.e. I can't run it. I take it that more needs to be in the lede, while stuff in the list-items doesn't count? Okay, I added to the lede just now, adding generic overview stuff about the list-article and moving up one sourced thing about there being no monument on the mall in Washington D.C., getting to this version as of right now. Is that enough? If it is not enough, please take any one sentence and duplicate it a few times. --Doncram (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
DYKCHECK shows "Prose size (text only): 1693 characters (265 words) 'readable prose size'" which is what is needed. It was nominated within the DYK time deadline, though it is getting less "new" every day.
This seems ready to be approved again (and it has been ready for quite a while), for what that might be worth. --Doncram (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass, can you possibly please restore approval of this, or otherwise take it forward? --Doncram (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Everything is fine, according to all I know. Please do fix the situation if I am doing something wrong by following what I can understand about current procedures. I am applying DYKtick here and coping this into a queue. --Doncram (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Doncram, as one of the credited creators, you are not eligible to approve this nomination, nor may you promoted it to prep. I am calling for a new reviewer (or perhaps Gatoclass will have time to stop by). In any event, sometimes DYK nominations end up having to wait longer than this; please be patient. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Yoninah: Would you like to re-review this please? Or User:BlueMoonset, would you like to do it please? I am not sure why you are 'calling for a new reviewer.'Zigzig20s (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have a bunch of nominations I pulled during the 12-hour cycle that I haven't found the wherewithal to get back to yet, including this one. I expect to get back to this in the next few days but if somebody else wants to verify it in the meantime I'm not standing in the way. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Gatoclass:OK...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass: could you please clarify what you mean by character count? Since this is a list article, is the lead section the only eligible part? All the list items are fully sourced, and there is a concluding section which is not part of the list, "Related monuments and memorials", which is 300 characters long. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, it was originally only 1200 characters according to DYKcheck. It's long enough now but the newly added text needs to be cited. Text following bullet points is not counted by DYKcheck and AFAIK we have never counted it. I will try to follow up on this nomination in the next day or two, I've been sick with a touch of flu over the last week and just haven't felt up to doing any editing, my apologies for the delay. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it would make sense to cite the lede more. We usually don't cite ledes, and it is a summary of the monuments below. The citation would literally be "see below."Zigzig20s (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Arbitrary break edit

Okay, before we go any further, I note that there are at least two bare urls in the references section, as well as two incompletely elucidated references in the Notes section, all of which need to be fixed before this nomination can move forward. Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "two incompletely elucidated references in the Notes section"?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, you have one labelled "History and Development of the National Cemetery Administration" which is an incomplete cite, and another labelled simply "Honoring". Gatoclass (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand. User:Doncram: Do you understand please?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I've taken care of the two incompletely elucidated references in the Notes section. (They now properly show inline citations for the actual references used.) Derek R Bullamore has taken care of the bare URLs and improved other referencing. Gatoclass, have the improvements addressed your concerns? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Maybe add the word 'monuments' too?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/List_of_Mexican-American_War_monuments_and_memorials&oldid=995345305"