This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European / German / North America / United States / World War II This redirect 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 Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force German military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force

I have my doubts about the article title, so I'm going to braoch the subject on the milhist ptoject pages GraemeLeggett ( talk) 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• The Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history wikipage does not contain the term "Oil Campaign", so to what specific "milhist ptoject pages" [ sic] was User:GraemeLeggett refering on 26 March? 74.5.112.42 ( talk) 21:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I would like to qualify the assessment ^{clarification needed} on the citation side, a number of cites are unfinished - particularly web ones with "tbd" instead of title and no access date. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 07:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• REVIEW: Note that the Revision history of Chronology of the Oil Campaign of World War II shows that User:GraemeLeggett is the wikieditor who converted the hyperlinks within the wikiarticle into references that appear at the end of the article (i.e., using an extra line for each citation; each which had, and still has, no substantial information). In particular, when converting the hyperlinks to citations, User:GraemeLeggett neglected to provide titles, accessdates, or even citation code (e.g., Template:Cite web). It appears that "tbd" now simply illustrates missing information which User:GraemeLeggett's neglected to provide when User:GraemeLeggett created the citations during the conversion. 74.5.112.42 ( talk) 21:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I was referring to the Quality assessment of this article

on the 26th that marked citation as passed. The MoS states a direct citation should be provided for any quoted material, and I assume that the citation shold be complete for it to count. That I had not completed the external weblink data myself when moving them from inline to ref has no bearing - an article moves through stages to completion and that includes the refinement of the citations. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 13:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Having had a further look, there are uncited quotations a couple of Bomber Command ones - within the chronology itself I can see that there is a direct date reference that means you can go to the right section of the BC diaries (with perhaps a little confusion within 1941) but these could be made more accurate by individual cites. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 07:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• REVIEW: User:GraemeLeggett's 27 March claim that "there is a direct date reference" (i.e., webpage with distinct hyperlink) is apparently a veiled recommendation to have a citation for each date on which there was a bombing mission. Since there are hundreds of bombing missions already listed on this wikipage, this recommendation would cause a preposterous waste of space (hundreds of citation lines). 74.5.112.42 ( talk) 21:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Nelson has 230 odd citations, is that too many? In the case here several citations will aggregate into one citation with multiple links (a, b, c, d etc I'm not aware of the correct terminology). I don't think it was a veiled suggestion of anything - my concern was to improve the citation quality by giving the location of the quote rather than a block of links which it might be from. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 13:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply