![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Camden Fort Meagher appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 June 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Camden Fort Meagher. 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) 11:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Camden Fort Meagher. 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) 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Are there any credible sites for the idea that the majority of this structure is underground? Qwirkle ( talk) 10:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Is there a single point along the trace of the works which shows a 40’ ditch...as opposed, perhaps, to a combination of ditch and scarp of that height? What does that say about the source that supplied this factoid
Are there any authoritative third-party, arms-length sources which make the claims of historical significance the article does? What does this say about the sources that make this claim? Why do so many of these sources concentrate geographically, and use almost exactly the same wording? Qwirkle ( talk) 10:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Camden Fort Meagher is internationally recognised as being “One of the finest remaining examples of a classical Coastal Artillery Fort in the world”strikes me as neither true nor even meaningful. (What, if anything, does “classical” mean here? An ignorant expansion of “classic?”)
Unless “one of” is used over a base of, say, several hundred, even thousands, this isn’t that true. This isn’t Suomenlinna. Qwirkle ( talk) 15:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Cheers Qwirkle. In all honesty, I've probably done as much as I'm gonna do for now. I've reduced the reliance on primary and " churnalism" type sources. And tempered/removed some of the stuff which reflected those sources. (Like the "65% underground" stuff, the stretching "claims to fame" in the lead, the more wordy passages about the volunteer clearing/development efforts, etc). I've also bulked up some of the more "arms reach" sources that you had suggested. And, though, in all honesty, I don't really have much reason to question the "ditch depth" claim, I have removed it none-the-less. I personally don't think there are any WP:PSTS or WP:DUBIOUS issues remaining. But if you note any, I'm happy to discuss. Guliolopez ( talk) 12:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Have these shown up here yet? There’s some beautiful stuff there. I especially like the 7” disappearing gun battery drawings. Qwirkle ( talk) 02:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Camden Fort Meagher appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 June 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Camden Fort Meagher. 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) 11:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Camden Fort Meagher. 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) 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Are there any credible sites for the idea that the majority of this structure is underground? Qwirkle ( talk) 10:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Is there a single point along the trace of the works which shows a 40’ ditch...as opposed, perhaps, to a combination of ditch and scarp of that height? What does that say about the source that supplied this factoid
Are there any authoritative third-party, arms-length sources which make the claims of historical significance the article does? What does this say about the sources that make this claim? Why do so many of these sources concentrate geographically, and use almost exactly the same wording? Qwirkle ( talk) 10:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Camden Fort Meagher is internationally recognised as being “One of the finest remaining examples of a classical Coastal Artillery Fort in the world”strikes me as neither true nor even meaningful. (What, if anything, does “classical” mean here? An ignorant expansion of “classic?”)
Unless “one of” is used over a base of, say, several hundred, even thousands, this isn’t that true. This isn’t Suomenlinna. Qwirkle ( talk) 15:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Cheers Qwirkle. In all honesty, I've probably done as much as I'm gonna do for now. I've reduced the reliance on primary and " churnalism" type sources. And tempered/removed some of the stuff which reflected those sources. (Like the "65% underground" stuff, the stretching "claims to fame" in the lead, the more wordy passages about the volunteer clearing/development efforts, etc). I've also bulked up some of the more "arms reach" sources that you had suggested. And, though, in all honesty, I don't really have much reason to question the "ditch depth" claim, I have removed it none-the-less. I personally don't think there are any WP:PSTS or WP:DUBIOUS issues remaining. But if you note any, I'm happy to discuss. Guliolopez ( talk) 12:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Have these shown up here yet? There’s some beautiful stuff there. I especially like the 7” disappearing gun battery drawings. Qwirkle ( talk) 02:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)