Talk:VP-HL-1

Instruction/example on what you believe are acceptable guidelines for the reference sources
Mztourist Please provide very..... very specific instruction/example on what you believe are acceptable guidelines for the reference sources I followed up with that you have undone. We need to avoid further cryptic reasons that I can't act on. I provided the following:

This article references additional operational events cited from the following US Navy Declassified public domain reports regarding the VP-HL-1/VPB-116 through authority of E. O. 13526 by: NDC, NARA Date 12/31/2012. The reports are available through Fold 3 by Ancestry.com as follows: 2. Squadron History – Patrol Bombing Squadron VPB-116 1943-1945 3. Aircraft Action Reports - VPB-116 1943-1945 4. War Diaries - VPB-116 1943-1945

What more is specifically needed?

Specific web links? Here are some such as...

https://www.fold3.com/document/295840383/ https://www.fold3.com/document/287147638/ https://www.fold3.com/document/302041608/ https://www.fold3.com/document/302041587/ https://www.fold3.com/document/302041620/

This should at minimum verify the sources. But do we need to clutter up with these link/things

Veradrive (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS which explains what sources are and are not acceptable. All detail that you add must be properly referenced, if you want to add it, its your job to reference it. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand the WP:RS.

Sources: I believe my source(s) are acceptable. Do you have any concern about the specific source reports I am citing. If so please describe.

References: These reports do not fit the mold of a simple book reference. Do you have any formatting guidance for listing a "report" reference of this type. If so please describe.

References: The reference included in the existing article is a general footnote reference to the overall section. Please provide your opinion of the type of reference you feel I should use based on the additions you see I want to make. Either...

A. A general footnote reference to the overall section I add to or... B. An inline citation footnote for each addition

I don't want to cause confusion or conflicts with the existing reference nor cause further back and forth incomplete discussions ad nauseum. thanks   Veradrive (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't open them so I can't check that what they say is accurate, so I have concerns there. You need to provide inline citation references in accordance with standard reference formatting. Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)