![]() | Big Inch has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 23, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Big Inch appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 May 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi. I was looking to do a bit of work on this article in coming weeks. Its citation style, however, is inconsistent - different cites take different forms. I'm proposing to make them consistent, and using the harvnb template and cite web templates for books/articles and on-line sources respectively. Would anyone object to this, or prefer a different citation style? Hchc2009 ( talk) 16:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Initial stab at formatting complete, and a bit of expansion done. I've paused in case there are any severe misgivings about the citation style; if people are content, I'll crack on with some more material later in the week. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the title of the article, I'm wondering if this shouldn't be retitled something like the Inch pipelines. It covers both the Big and Little Inch pipelines, but Big and Little Inche pipelines sounds a bit cumbersome, and a lot of the literature uses the term "Inch pipelines" to refer to the combination of the two. We could then have redirects from the Big and Little Inch names etc. What do people reckon? Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Big Inch has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 23, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Big Inch appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 May 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi. I was looking to do a bit of work on this article in coming weeks. Its citation style, however, is inconsistent - different cites take different forms. I'm proposing to make them consistent, and using the harvnb template and cite web templates for books/articles and on-line sources respectively. Would anyone object to this, or prefer a different citation style? Hchc2009 ( talk) 16:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Initial stab at formatting complete, and a bit of expansion done. I've paused in case there are any severe misgivings about the citation style; if people are content, I'll crack on with some more material later in the week. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the title of the article, I'm wondering if this shouldn't be retitled something like the Inch pipelines. It covers both the Big and Little Inch pipelines, but Big and Little Inche pipelines sounds a bit cumbersome, and a lot of the literature uses the term "Inch pipelines" to refer to the combination of the two. We could then have redirects from the Big and Little Inch names etc. What do people reckon? Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)