User talk:Nick-D/reviews
Sources are good
[edit]I don't think that it is appropriate to remove original news coverage from military history articles. Yes, they are propaganda; but propaganda is a very important aspect of any war effort. Citing facts based solely on these sources, without noting their partisan nature in the text, can be problematic; but adding them as supplementary references, or adding the sources to document that Allied newsreels reported a fact is invaluable. Wnt (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- OOC Nick, how would you evaluate my use of original news coverage in the South American dreadnought race article? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Given that you've used the stories to either add extra details to material mainly referenced to secondary sources or to explain how newspapers reported these developments at the time, it looks great to me. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cool. That's what I figured, but it never hurts to ask. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Given that you've used the stories to either add extra details to material mainly referenced to secondary sources or to explain how newspapers reported these developments at the time, it looks great to me. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)