A fact from Artillery of the Nguyễn lords appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 February 2008, and was viewed approximately 4,806 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Is this about the artillery equipment (guns, cannons, etc.) or the artillery men/corps? If the former, why not describe the equipment in some (or any) detail? Badagnani ( talk) 23:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I did a drive-by editing on some of the wording, grammar Nazi that I am. The article still needs reorganization.
IMO, there needs to be more work on references. Some authorities are named, but none of their works are identified. Is all of this from one source?
Btw, is the comment on who eats what supposed to be cute? It isn't.
Terry J. Carter ( talk) 17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I just read the yellow box above, after I finished my previous post.
As I understand the study of history, it is about causes and effects, not the amassing of factoids, so I meet all instances of trivialization with distaste. I'm studying history to understand human beings, not to win money on Jeopardy.
That being said, this is a particularly egregious example, because the article states that the "knowledge" selected for spotlighting is actually controversial. 'Did You Know?' Did I know? Hell, does anybody know?
Terry J. Carter ( talk) 17:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
A fact from Artillery of the Nguyễn lords appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 February 2008, and was viewed approximately 4,806 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Is this about the artillery equipment (guns, cannons, etc.) or the artillery men/corps? If the former, why not describe the equipment in some (or any) detail? Badagnani ( talk) 23:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I did a drive-by editing on some of the wording, grammar Nazi that I am. The article still needs reorganization.
IMO, there needs to be more work on references. Some authorities are named, but none of their works are identified. Is all of this from one source?
Btw, is the comment on who eats what supposed to be cute? It isn't.
Terry J. Carter ( talk) 17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I just read the yellow box above, after I finished my previous post.
As I understand the study of history, it is about causes and effects, not the amassing of factoids, so I meet all instances of trivialization with distaste. I'm studying history to understand human beings, not to win money on Jeopardy.
That being said, this is a particularly egregious example, because the article states that the "knowledge" selected for spotlighting is actually controversial. 'Did You Know?' Did I know? Hell, does anybody know?
Terry J. Carter ( talk) 17:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)