User talk:Bye for now/sandbox2

Welcome
Welcome! --Bye for now (PTT) 09:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Some ideas
G'day Bfn, I thought I'd just start a thread here to give you some personal guidance. It's my perspective, of course, but I have some runs on the board after nearly 3 years, and I hope I can be of help as you explore editing in Milhist areas. Let me know if I am a. shooting over your head, or b. treating you like a numpty? I can across as a bit brusque, so bear with me if you feel that too? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Referencing and citations
I very quickly learnt that shortened footnotes (sfn) is the easiest and least "busy" system for citations, far better than ref tags. Combined with using the ref=harv field in the cite books (or cite whatever) template, it works a treat. Have a look at any of my FAs and you will see how to use it. Essentially, you use the simple sfn citation template here, then marry up the author and year fields of the cite book (or cite whatever) template so that if you click on the actual numerical footnote, it points at the citation in the Footnotes section, and if you click on that, it points you to the actual cite book (or cite whatever) template in the References section. Once you master this, it is a doddle to cite references in-line. Try clicking on the first citation in the Pavle Đurišić article, and you will see it immediately brings you down to the full citation in the Footnotes section (1. a b Pajović 1987, pp. 12–13), and if you click on that, it shows you the full cite book information in the References section. With me so far? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * smashed it with the "Royal Marines Museum" citation. That is exactly how you do it. Top job... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ahaa! It works for reports and websites as well - not just books. I can now do some more on 3 Commando Brigade Air Squadron  as well as No. 660 Squadron AAC . Cheers, --Bye for now  (PTT) 11:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, and if you interested in a script that you can run that will show when your citations, footnotes and sources don't point to each other, have a look at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Got that installed OK - pretty neat. Thanks for that, --Bye for now  (PTT) 14:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Coverage and accuracy
Here we are in slightly subjective territory. But let me say that I learnt pretty quickly what makes a B-class article on a ship, or bio, for example. If you can't source where the person was born, where they grew up, or what they did before they became notable, even in a most basic sense, you haven't met the criteria. Just covering what it/they were notable for doesn't cut it for b=2. And your sources need to be reliable. That can be a matter of opinion occasionally, but if you are really stuck, someone is challenging your source and no-one will give you a third opinion, go to the reliable sources noticeboard, and link the material you are trying to use and the source you are trying to use to cite it. They will give you a steer. Generally, websites that are not "official" sites of a subject are pretty dubious. Even then, they are usually too close to the subject. Blogs are generally out unless they are the blog of an acknowledged reliable source. A good example of this is the blog of Marko Attila Hoare, who is a well-known and highly respected historian on Yugoslavia. There are plenty of "fanboi" websites out there, few if any of which actually say what sources they use, have a reputation for accuracy, or provide any idea of what their qualifications are. Use them, as a prompt on ways to find the reliably sourced info. Roger? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wilco --Bye for now (PTT) 13:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So would a reasonable summary of the "coverage and accuracy" thing be that it should cover from the time the subject came into existence to when it ceased to be (or the present time) whichever comes first and that a "reasonable" ammount of detail should be provided for this timescale? I get what you're saying about sources but I will incorporate that into the B1 part.  --Bye for now  (PTT) 17:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a fair summary. In various cases a subject might need some background or an aftermath section, depends on the subject. For example, for 3 CBAS, you could add a Background section above Formation which could provide some information on the history of integral air support to the Commando's. When it began, what operations they were involved in as individual air troops. As far as a Legacy section is concerned, you could briefly mention how the traditions of the integral RM air support units have been carried on in the RAN Sqn (if any). Battle honours, competitions named after decorated or KIA members etc. This would obviously make it really comprehensive, and you would be approaching GA at that stage in terms of coverage. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * on a related note see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FJohn_V._.22Scarsdale_Jack.22_Newkirk

When I first opened my sandbox it said to put your first draft forward. I ignored this on the grounds that it would probably disappear down a black hole. This seems to have happened here and the user gave up. --Bye for now (PTT) 17:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)