| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bernard Gavrin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from Bernard Gavrin appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 January 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What about the other two US bodies?
editThe article mentions that the Kuentai Group "found three dog tags belonging to American soldiers". What about the other two Americans? Was Gavrin the only one identified? Were the other two soldiers buried as unknowns? Manxruler (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is a good question. From this article, article it appears that they have. I'll add that information with qualification to the article. It appears that William T. Carneal was found in another mass grave. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. That creates a more complete picture. I see both the other soldiers were buried at other cemeteries. Manxruler (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Over-referencing
editI've just removed some really excessive over-referencing from the article. Having multiple references for facts covered by one or two refs doesn't seem helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- The various article do differ some in their content. The point of all the references is for future expansion of the article by me or other editors. As you know, as time goes by, it becomes increasingly difficult to find sources. Over-referencing is only a possible issue if the purpose is overkill, but the purpose in this case is to have them there for future expansion. Note also that WP:OVERCITE is not policy. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd suggest listing them as 'further reading' in that case (given that's what they are). I think that having lots of references for simple statements makes the infomation cited look of questionable accuracy or controversial, and doesn't do readers any favours. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think the sources are somewhat redundant but each has a little different information, so I put them back in the reference list and hid them with an explanatory comment (fairly common to do) and in accordance with WP:HIDDEN.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- That seems sensible Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)