This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of the Eastern Solomons article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Battle of the Eastern Solomons is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Battle of the Eastern Solomons is part of the Guadalcanal Campaign series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2013. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've been trying to replace the old U.S. Navy battle map for this article with a self-made map using "Campaign Cartographer" (CC2). Unfortunately, the notoriously user-unfriendly CC2 program is resisting my best efforts to get a map done. I'll keep working on it but will try to see, after one final copyedit, if the article can pass FA review as is. Cla68 12:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I altered "low on fuel" to "claiming a need to fuel". His low fuel state isn't established fact, & accepting his claim uncritically is, I'd say, POV--or naive. IMO, it smacks of cowardice, & FJF did end up relieved after a similar "need to fuel". Trekphiler 11:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
At the moment there's a sentence that states that five TBF Avengers from the USS Saratoga scored near-hits on Chitose which damaged the ship. However, when I click on the reference tag that takes me to the bottom of the page, (there seems to be two sources listed under this tag actually) there's a link to the "Chitose tabular record of movement" page from combinedfleet.com which relates a similar account but states that the planes which attacked were SBD Dauntlesses rather than Avengers. Now I don't have access to the other source (or any other source for that matter) so I don't want to go ahead and edit this just yet, but perhaps someone else can verify which is correct? — Masterblooregard ( talk) 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Eastern Solomons. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I read this through, did a c/e and checked the images as part of WP:URFA/2020, and it looks satisfactory. While I could make a few nitpicks about citation and source formatting, and it could do with a check to see if there has been any new publications with fresh takes on the battle, I don't consider it merits a FAR. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to refactor the References section to eventually look something like Operation Barbarossa § References, where the H2 References section contains the following H3's: Footnotes, Citations, Bibliography, and Further reading. I think in most cases, the paragraph-long explanatory footnotes would be clearer when set off by the typical {{ efn}}/{{ notelist}} numbering ([a], [b], etc.). That way, a reader will have a clearer indication that explanatory text might provide further insight, rather than giving them no indication that the note is not just a reference.
To be clear, I'm primarily motivated to separate the (would-be) efns from the refs/sfns. As an example, the 1st <ref>
note (re: 176 aircraft in the infobox) would be converted to {{efn}}
, and its {{harvnb|Frank|...}}
would become a <ref>
itself.
Out the gate, I'm not convinced every single "paragraph-long ref" should be converted blindly, because the {{harvnb}}
s at the beginning of each one may or may not support what the text of the note says, so certainly some reference checking would have to occur before those are swapped over. But I think maybe 1/3 of them are pretty much ready to become {{efn}}
s pretty quickly. —
sbb (
talk)
02:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't fix this, because I don't know what the author wants to say. Sentence is incomplete Sudzydoogiedawg ( talk) 02:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Should read Background, not history Sudzydoogiedawg ( talk) 02:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of the Eastern Solomons article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Battle of the Eastern Solomons is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Battle of the Eastern Solomons is part of the Guadalcanal Campaign series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2013. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've been trying to replace the old U.S. Navy battle map for this article with a self-made map using "Campaign Cartographer" (CC2). Unfortunately, the notoriously user-unfriendly CC2 program is resisting my best efforts to get a map done. I'll keep working on it but will try to see, after one final copyedit, if the article can pass FA review as is. Cla68 12:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I altered "low on fuel" to "claiming a need to fuel". His low fuel state isn't established fact, & accepting his claim uncritically is, I'd say, POV--or naive. IMO, it smacks of cowardice, & FJF did end up relieved after a similar "need to fuel". Trekphiler 11:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
At the moment there's a sentence that states that five TBF Avengers from the USS Saratoga scored near-hits on Chitose which damaged the ship. However, when I click on the reference tag that takes me to the bottom of the page, (there seems to be two sources listed under this tag actually) there's a link to the "Chitose tabular record of movement" page from combinedfleet.com which relates a similar account but states that the planes which attacked were SBD Dauntlesses rather than Avengers. Now I don't have access to the other source (or any other source for that matter) so I don't want to go ahead and edit this just yet, but perhaps someone else can verify which is correct? — Masterblooregard ( talk) 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Eastern Solomons. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I read this through, did a c/e and checked the images as part of WP:URFA/2020, and it looks satisfactory. While I could make a few nitpicks about citation and source formatting, and it could do with a check to see if there has been any new publications with fresh takes on the battle, I don't consider it merits a FAR. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to refactor the References section to eventually look something like Operation Barbarossa § References, where the H2 References section contains the following H3's: Footnotes, Citations, Bibliography, and Further reading. I think in most cases, the paragraph-long explanatory footnotes would be clearer when set off by the typical {{ efn}}/{{ notelist}} numbering ([a], [b], etc.). That way, a reader will have a clearer indication that explanatory text might provide further insight, rather than giving them no indication that the note is not just a reference.
To be clear, I'm primarily motivated to separate the (would-be) efns from the refs/sfns. As an example, the 1st <ref>
note (re: 176 aircraft in the infobox) would be converted to {{efn}}
, and its {{harvnb|Frank|...}}
would become a <ref>
itself.
Out the gate, I'm not convinced every single "paragraph-long ref" should be converted blindly, because the {{harvnb}}
s at the beginning of each one may or may not support what the text of the note says, so certainly some reference checking would have to occur before those are swapped over. But I think maybe 1/3 of them are pretty much ready to become {{efn}}
s pretty quickly. —
sbb (
talk)
02:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't fix this, because I don't know what the author wants to say. Sentence is incomplete Sudzydoogiedawg ( talk) 02:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Should read Background, not history Sudzydoogiedawg ( talk) 02:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)