This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics 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.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
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:
This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
While I've retained the date WP:MOS and other stylistic changes of the last editor, I have reverted primarily because of the remarkable way he gave one article, by author Nash, a double mention in the Footnotes/References/External links section, including a special place of honor called "Sources consulted," which is not a WP:CITE heading. He also used it to footnote things that were already properly cited, such as Crosby birth date – which already had an authoritative site, the Social Security Death Index. I must ask, given the overwhelming use of that article and the special treatment given it, whether this is a WP:COI by that article's author.
The previous editor added the specific death date, Dec. 8, under the aegis of the SSN Index footnote, yet that is not so: The Index gives only December 1964. I've added the Robinson cite for that. I've also deleted redundant mentions of birth and death dates — they're given at top, and there's no need to be repetitious.
I've restored the Footnotes / References / External links section to WP:CITE format. I used the Skippy official site as a direct article reference, so I'm unsure why it was placed under the "for further reading" External links section while giving double listing to the Nash article.
When editors make such radical and questionable changes as did the previous editor, I would ask, with all respect, that they Talk-page rationales for it. I would like very much to discuss the special treatment of the Nash article, and why the previous editor felt it was necessary to use it to double-footnote things already footnoted, list it twice in the References, etc. --Tenebrae15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having now gone in and made my edits, I've found that virtually all of the previous editor's edits still appear, so my original subhead above was overstatement.
The primary edits I made were regarding the special treatment and double-footnotings, etc., of the Nash article. Three Nash footnotes remain. If there is any reason for that article's previous special treatment, let's discuss. --Tenebrae15:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
