Talk:The Menin Road (painting)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Military history: British / European / World War I

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

CE

Re recent ce, references and citations were unsatisfactory and I have hopes of moving the article to B class. Any suggestions welcome, I think a good start has been made. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you kidding ? A, very, badly written paragraph about Max Aitken and a paragraph of Gough's thoughts on the painting hardly add anything. The format you are using, or rather attempting to use as you don't seem to have the hang of it, for the references look awful. If you want to introduce that style to an article you should raise it on the Talk page first as it requires a lot of work to undo, which is likely the only reason it persists on the other pages you have introduced it too.14GTR (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive criticism. You do not own this article and I do not accept that you can summarily dismiss my improvements. I will return the page to the improved form then look at your comments about Gough. In the meantime I suggest you review your knowledge of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@14GTR I'd rather avoid more confrontation so why don't we discuss the edits I did yesterday one at a time to reach consensus. I use sfn's because they're the only ones I can remember and they work well, when using lots of citations from the same source. If your heart's set on the <> variety for the article I will concede and change them back. I regret treading on your toes but it seemed like a becalmed article, that was ideal for integration into the 3rd Ypres pages, so as to broaden the subject to include aesthetic responses (preferably from all sides). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the points above. Yes, I would strongly prefer to retain the <> format and would like to see it reinserted. I think it is much easier to use than sfn for editors and looks better for readers as it avoids creating a footnotes section. As for the rest this morning I removed a detail about the CRO which seemed excessive/off topic. The other main change was remove the quote about being shot at. I know that it is a quote from Nash, from a letter to his wife as I recall, but the way it was inserted into that sentence gave, or gave me at least, the impression Nash Was surprised to be coming under fire which would hardly be the case by that stage of the war and his previous experiences on the Western Front. I did try rewriting that part with the quote retained but couldn't get it to work. So hope that helps - feel free to suggest a way forward.14GTR (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this in good part, it's a bit of a departure from my usual subjects and although I've never got the hang of the abbreviated form of < > I'll have a go. I like sfns because in my usual fields being able to jump between citations and footnotes is helpful but I really should have checked to see if the article was dormant first. I was rushing a bit too as I had the Test Match on. ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's done the trick. Had you any intentions for developing the page? Keith-264 (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good. As for developing the article there at least 30 or so books published about Nash so, potentially, there is a lot of additional material available.14GTR (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at Ethos yesterday (its free) and found a few things but I can feel a trip down the library coming on. Keith-264 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

"Paul Nash had spent the spring of 1917 in the Ypres Salient and returned there as an official artist in November that year." Interesting edit, do you really think that someone might not know which November?Keith-264 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

@14GTR: Copied from [1]

[|authorn= is an alias of |lastn= and intended for use when author has a single name (Bono for example) or is a corporate name; use for whole names is permitted
|lastn= and |firstn= are the preferred author-name parameters. Use of these parameters ensures that name lists are uniformly formatted in both the rendering of the citation (that which readers see) and in the citation's metadata (that which is consumed by users of reference management software). Humans tend to introduce variations in name style when compiling lists; let the machine do the formatting.] Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]