This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jagdgeschwader 53 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I made a bit of a mess there Harryurz - seems we were both adding headlines and such at the same time :) Feel free to revert to your latest edition, or if you can incorporate your changes into my edits. Abel29a 10:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:JG53-Emblem.gif
editImage:JG53-Emblem.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Recent edit
editPreserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "c/e for concision (i.e. remove factory numbers); npov; reducing uncited intricate detail unlikely to be available in secondary RS". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- The whole Stalingrad section and the list of aces shot down still seems a bit odd and unbalanced.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)