This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
332nd Engineer General Service Regiment received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
The Anonymous user at IP 65.208.246.114 chose to delete a significant section of the V2 article without discussion on this talk page. The article as written is an accurate account of the events that led up to the removal of the documents from their hidden storage location. It combines information from "Crossbow and Overcast" and from the published regimental history. If the user at IP 65.208.246.114 desires to discuss this please do so before deleting large amounts of text. Mfields1 23:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
To the editor at IP 65.208.246.114. The USAMHI maintinas in its collections material relavent to this. Here is a website which will verify that this is a reliable source. There is no need to label it "questionable".
For some reason the editor seems to want to use other sources as being more reliable or somehow more accurate? Please discuss, or do we need Wiki administrators to guide on this? Mfields1 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Since an actual peer review has not been conducted to confirm whether the cited document supports the V-2 rocket claims by Mfields1, a request for the relevant pages has been made. [1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.25.52.233 ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The user who requested the Bridging for Victory info [2] should now have a copy of the Bridging for Victory epilogue, which indicates at least one claim by Mfields1 is fabricated. For example, Bridging for Victory does not claim Von Braun was with Staver and Porter when they persuaded the Executive Officer on June 21. Moreover, later information to the Executive Officer on "Friday, 29 June" (pg 392) would not have been "very exciting news" (pg 393) to the Executive Officer as claimed by Bridging for Victory -- the Executive Officer had the information over a week earlier! Also, since the Bridging for Victory epilogue (describing the mission for V-2 documents) is written as "We", but the author identifies he was not on the mission, it appears the epilogue was written by someone else, then added to the document and claimed as the author's work.
Had the peer review [3] actually been conducted for the Wikipedia article, the invalidity of Mfields1's claim(s) in the section would have been easy to see, and the inaccuracy of Bridging for Victory regarding V-2 documents would have also been addressed. Perhaps Mfields1 will begin providing quotes from references to support further claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.22.119 ( talk) 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the quote exactly as printed. The anonymous user at IP 69.34.22.119 is incorrect in writing this was fabricated. Mfields1 23:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
332nd Engineer General Service Regiment received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
The Anonymous user at IP 65.208.246.114 chose to delete a significant section of the V2 article without discussion on this talk page. The article as written is an accurate account of the events that led up to the removal of the documents from their hidden storage location. It combines information from "Crossbow and Overcast" and from the published regimental history. If the user at IP 65.208.246.114 desires to discuss this please do so before deleting large amounts of text. Mfields1 23:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
To the editor at IP 65.208.246.114. The USAMHI maintinas in its collections material relavent to this. Here is a website which will verify that this is a reliable source. There is no need to label it "questionable".
For some reason the editor seems to want to use other sources as being more reliable or somehow more accurate? Please discuss, or do we need Wiki administrators to guide on this? Mfields1 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Since an actual peer review has not been conducted to confirm whether the cited document supports the V-2 rocket claims by Mfields1, a request for the relevant pages has been made. [1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.25.52.233 ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The user who requested the Bridging for Victory info [2] should now have a copy of the Bridging for Victory epilogue, which indicates at least one claim by Mfields1 is fabricated. For example, Bridging for Victory does not claim Von Braun was with Staver and Porter when they persuaded the Executive Officer on June 21. Moreover, later information to the Executive Officer on "Friday, 29 June" (pg 392) would not have been "very exciting news" (pg 393) to the Executive Officer as claimed by Bridging for Victory -- the Executive Officer had the information over a week earlier! Also, since the Bridging for Victory epilogue (describing the mission for V-2 documents) is written as "We", but the author identifies he was not on the mission, it appears the epilogue was written by someone else, then added to the document and claimed as the author's work.
Had the peer review [3] actually been conducted for the Wikipedia article, the invalidity of Mfields1's claim(s) in the section would have been easy to see, and the inaccuracy of Bridging for Victory regarding V-2 documents would have also been addressed. Perhaps Mfields1 will begin providing quotes from references to support further claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.22.119 ( talk) 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the quote exactly as printed. The anonymous user at IP 69.34.22.119 is incorrect in writing this was fabricated. Mfields1 23:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!