This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New Zealand and
New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
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 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
What makes "Online Cenotaph. Auckland Museum." a
WP:RS? The webpage acknowledges that "The development of the Online Cenotaph is an ongoing process; updates, new images and records are added weekly. In some cases, records have yet to be confirmed by Museum staff, and there could be mistakes or omissions in the information provided." and the contributors include a "Direct descendant". I'm not convinced this meets our standards for a RS.
I think it is OK for very basic, non-controversial information. It is published by the Auckland Museum and although anyone can submit information, it apparently gets reviewed by museum staff before going live. That's my experience at least anyway - I used it to submit details on a relative. In MacKenzie's case, I used it for his exact dob (but could replace with Wynn), exact dod and the fact that he was survived by his wife and two of three children. I would struggle to source the last two points without it.
Zawed (
talk)
11:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm happy enough with that; like you say, it is supporting non-controversial information. Might be an issue if you wanted to take this any further though.
Harriastalk12:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)reply
"Royal Air Force, Fighter Command, 1939-1945": use an endash in the year range for the title.
The Kenneth G. Wynn book looks self-published: is Wynn an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", as required by
WP:RS?
I believe he is an expert - the book I've used is one of his earlier works but it has been cited by several subsequent NZ aviation historians, including Claasen and Lambert, also used in the article, as well as by
Vincent Orange. Since 1981, Wynn's work has been published by Gliddon Books (in 1990) and more recently by Pen & Sword. His 1990 book in listed in the bibliography of John Ray's history of the Battle of Britain.
Zawed (
talk)
11:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)reply
"claimed a Ju 88 as a probable" This need a bit more clarification, maybe as a footnote, just to make clear to a layperson what is meant by "a probable".