Template:Did you know nominations/Cromwell’s Soldiers’ Pocket Bible

Cromwell's Soldiers' Pocket Bible

 * ... that after Cromwell's Soldiers' Pocket Bible was issued in 1643 his soldiers always beat the enemy in any battle they fought? Withdraw original hook, see ALT1.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Created by Doug Coldwell (talk). Self nominated at 12:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC).
 * Reviewed The Idolmaster Dearly Stars
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The sources for the hook don't look reliable enough to me. Gatoclass (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (#5 ref) Internet Archive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that was founded to build an Internet library. Its purposes include offering permanent access for researchers, historians, scholars, and the general public to historical collections that exist in digital format. Its wording is: In 1643 appeared this little manual for the English army. Cromwell declares, Accordingly, I raised such men as had the fear of God before them and made some conscience of what they did. And from that day forward they never were beaten, but whenever they were engaged against the enemy, they beat continually.
 * (#6 ref) The Boston Athenæum, a membership library is an active institution that serves a wide variety of members and scholars with more than 600,000 titles in its book collection. The Boston Athenæum functions as a public library for many of its members, with a large and distinguished circulating collection.
 * (#7 ref) Christian Work Company has been publishing Christian related books since the middle of the ninteenth century. Alexander McConnell and William Revell Moody have written several reference books. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter where the sources are deposited, it's the sources themselves that matter. A claim from Cromwell himself that his armies were never beaten after they were issued with Bibles is clearly not a reliable claim, and a Christian press ca. 1900s is also at the very least questionable. So I think you would at least have to modify the hook to clarify that this a claim not an established fact - either that or find some better sources or a different hook. Gatoclass (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter where the sources are deposited, it's the sources themselves that matter. A claim from Cromwell himself that his armies were never beaten after they were issued with Bibles is clearly not a reliable claim, and a Christian press ca. 1900s is also at the very least questionable. So I think you would at least have to modify the hook to clarify that this a claim not an established fact - either that or find some better sources or a different hook. Gatoclass (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT1 ... that soldiers in Cromwell's army were provided in 1643 with a soldier's pocket version of the Geneva Bible, with just 16 pages of verses all of which pertained to war? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT2 ... that every soldier in Cromwell's army was provided in 1643 with a soldier's pocket pamphlet version of the Geneva Bible, with just 16 pages of verses which pertained to war? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Refs - U.S. Government Printing Office, 1898 (Congressional Edition, Volume 3549); page 1022 and Physical description section of "The Soldier's pocket Bible" showing 16 pages. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The alt hook looks fine, but I think the article is lacking in solid secondary sources which provide significant coverage per WP:GNG. Here is one source you could add that would clearly demonstrate notability - it also contains some additional info you might like to add to the article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gatoclass for the Daniell source suggestion. I have expanded article using the source and added some additional inline references pointing to this source.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have added several additional secondary sources for references.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 1 & 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I am verifying ALT1 with a slight tweak for accuracy. Gatoclass (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a side note on this. Per User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, multiple references come up with red errors for Harv Ref, as well as several set up under Bibliography— Maile  (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maile - I double checked the references and don't see the red errors you are talking about. Can you be more specific? I'll be glad to fix them, IF I knew which ones you are talking about. OR maybe you can fix.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats why I put the Uchcha/HarvErrors link. That explains it, and you need to have it loaded to your .js to see the errors.  But here's what I see:  Refs 1,7,8, 20,22 and 25 are saying "doesn't point to any citation".  Down in the bibliography the targets they should be point to have the error "There is no link pointing to this citation."  Those two error messages together probably just mean that the SFN has something that isn't exactly like the target, or maybe there is a missing pipe in the SFN.  In addition down in the bibliography, the Elliot Stock and McConnell books say nothing is pointing to them, and I see no inline citation that is.  That probably just means you need to remove the HarvRef coding from the listing in the bibliography.  I never saw these kinds of errors either until I went through an A-class review and was told I had those errors in the article, and was told to download the Uchcha script.  — Maile  (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)