h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Shot At Dawn - A34509170
Author: Galaxy Babe - Front Page author - U128652

Just a few things I've noticed

with dates I've learnt to put a comma between the month and year. So <> should be September, 1917.

I don't like the use of a comma before the conjunction word 'and' so

<>

He fought and was injured in, battles at Mons and the Somme.

<> should a comma not appear after the year?

<< ...another five from WWII, was finally unveiled at Fulstow Village Hall. >>

I think you meant to put 'were' instead of 'was'.

That's all for now

>>The villagers wanted a memorial, but a disagreement arose about who should be honoured and remembered, when the inclusion of one name was being objected to<<
This sounds rather awkward. How about:
<>

AWOL = Absent Without Official Leave

The link should be from <'Shot at Dawn' memorial>, rather than from

Hmm. I always though AWOL meant 'Absent Without Leave'

Interesting BA, I've just checked, and the OED has the same view

The link should be from <'Shot at Dawn' memorial>, rather than from
>>The villagers wanted a memorial, but a disagreement arose about who should be honoured and remembered, when the inclusion of one name was being objected to<<
changed to:
<>
>> ...another five from WWII, was finally unveiled at Fulstow Village Hall.<<
<>
No, because I'm talking about the plaque, "*was* finally unveiled" is correct.
<> should a comma not appear after the year?
Not when the sentence follows straight on, with no pause for breath.

>>with dates I've learnt to put a comma between the month and year. So <> should be September, 1917.<<
That's wrong, you place a comma after the month when you've used a specific date:
30 September, 1917 is correct
September 1917 is correct

>>>>I don't like the use of a comma before the conjunction word 'and' so
<> = He fought and was injured in, battles at Mons and the Somme.<<<<
Your turnaround doesn't make sense to me, so if my original sentence is incorrect can someone else please suggest an alternative, thanks.

Thanks for the reviews.
I'm particularly interested in whether it reads balanced or not, I'm willing to add more to the other side of the argument. I know there were quite a lot of objections to the proposed pardons because my father was heavily involved in the campaign, he used to lay a special cross on which he wrote "For those shot at Dawn" in a quiet moment after the officialdom of Remembrance Sunday had all departed. He lived long enough (just) to hear about the pardons.

IMO, there is not a balance problem. It is essentially the story of one man out of the 306. You have mentioned that there were objections to an official pardon of all the men involved. The pardon has now been granted - it is a done deal.

Thank you

It is well balanced, imo. In fact, it is exactly as short and as poignant as its title.

I'll be thinking about this for some time.

Given the horrific stresses placed upon soldiers then and now, I'm going to hazard to guess that many survivors, like your father, quietly held the thought, 'that could have been me'.

That's exactly the feeling I was hoping to covey, thank you

This is an interesting entry. The only problem for me is that I don't know what it's about. Are you writing about the practice of shooting soldiers at dawn, UK soldiers shot at dawn, the memorial, or this one individual? I could see a case made for all four.

I never knew about this - well, I guess I *knew* about it in theory, but you've made it real now - if you know what I mean.

Hard to believe it took so many years to acknowledge all war victims.

Thanks Bel,

It's never been about one individual Jordan, there are two men I specifically mention, and I've now put the 17 y.o.'s name in a subheader before the statue to emphasise that. I don't understand that you say that you don't know what it's about, even though you found it interesting. It's about the pardoning of the soldiers branded cowards. How can I make it clearer?

A very sensitively written Entry, GB. It's nice to know that the bravery of such men was recognised and appreciated by old soldiers like your Dad. (I was listenming to a radio play about a similar issue during the week, on Radio 4)

I would make the title more clear, personally, because the intro doesn't really clear up what the topic is. But it's up to you.

Thanks Big Al, I had linked to the Radio 4 recording about the Fulstow war memorial.

I'll have a think about the title, Jordan, the intro is the wording on the village war memorials, its shortness is its poignancy, and I don't want to elaborate on that unless I have to.

Is 'shot at dawn' a synonym for 'execution' in the UK?
In that case, I'd say leave the title. Personally, I expected to find an entry about duels.

Ah, oh well, I was tweaking and changing while you posted, and now the title is ^^^

I've removed the first two headers, so it doesn't look so broken up.

"Shot at Dawn" is synonymous with the military shootings of WWI. Being shot by firing squad (pooled from your own comrades) was considered a more honourable death - criminals were hanged.

I'd say this makes it clearer now.