Talk:Third Battle of the Hook

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Third Battle of the Hook article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Asian / British / Chinese / European / Korean / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	British military history task force
	Chinese military history task force
	European military history task force
	Korean military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

China: History Start‑class Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

The artillery shell counts can't be verified as there aren't any references listed. Math for the listed U.N. numbers don't add up to the stated total. RobNeal1 (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)28Nov2007RobNeal1[reply]

The shell count and much more are indeed verified by the source of much of this article, - the blow-by-blow contemporaneous account in the official War Diary published by the National Archives, London. Even the names of the wounded (some still alive) are listed, along with the nature of their wounds. The final DWR casualty listed was a regimental cook who broke an arm after falling into a trench in the darkness. It is the nature of an encyclopaedia article that it has to be presented in a summary format. Consequently, too many references can be a disadvantage, disrupting the article's readability, although these are inevitably subjective judgements on the editors part. There are sufficient references usually given to enable readers wishing to explore the topic in greater depth to do that. 5.70.185.69 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five years too late! If you know where the source comes from, please cite it. Using the ^[1] template doesn't distract from the readability and that is exactly the kind of fact that people sometimes feel they have to overelaborate or guess. Providing the source helps a great deal! -- Brigade Piron (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Ref

[1] Ref

[1]