Jump to content

Talk:Third Battle of the Hook

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 198.252.15.202 (talk) at 15:18, 29 May 2013 (Added B-class checklist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / British / Chinese / European / Korean / North America / United States Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
Chinese military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
Korean military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
WikiProject iconChina: History Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
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]
  1. ^ Ref