Talk:Machine Gun Corps
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Machine Gun Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050830064830/http://homepages.which.net/~rex/bourne/dyke.htm to http://homepages.which.net/~rex/bourne/dyke.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
More info about your source
edit@Cjrother Would it be possible to provide further detail about the source that you added:
|title=Infantry Branch
|journal=History of War
|page=18
|date=January 2023
Can you advise if this is online? If not, which organisation is the publisher? Who authored the article? When was it published? It is very sparse. I would be interested in using the source for an article I am trying to improve.
Regards Keith H99 (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- The source is a British magazine that I read through my library's app (Libby) - I assume it is also a paper magazine. I could not find the article online - the magazine doesn't seem to have any web presence - which is why I tried to quote it as a journal. The article does not have an author listed. The publisher is Future PLC (based in Bath UK). The magazine is dated January 2023 and is issue 116.
- Hope this helps. Please let me know if you feel this is an inappropriate source. Cjrother (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to reply. It would appear to be online, with limited scope for buying hard copies
- https://www.magazinesdirect.com/az-single-issues/6936994/history-of-war-magazine-single-issue.thtml
- Their FB page looks tacky, unless James Blunt at War is a subject of merit. It's a shame they don't provide proper sourcing and the names of the contributors. They just want to be the History Channel of online historical magazines, which downgrades them as a source. It's a shame, as this sounded like it had potential. You'd think that a magazine would want to be dotting the i's & crossing its t's so it could be a credible source, rather than something disposable. Keith H99 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Although I am not so keen on online sources, I think a more plausible alternative source of info is the website of the Vickers MG Collection & Research Association. I saw their head honcho at Kew a few weeks ago in the reading room.
- https://vickersmg.blog/about/
- Hope this is of interest. Keith H99 (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- For the reasons that I have stated, I do not think this is a reliable source, and have replaced one citation from it with an equivalent from Corrigan, which is a more reliable source. Whilst you have been trying to improve this dreadful article, which is laudable, it would be justifiable for a wiki editor to either mark this as unreliable or to remove the content itself, in my opinion. Keith H99 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for info. I tend to agree about the source being low quality but I had it so I thought I'd use it to improve an article I remembered needing work. I have added the issue number to the ref to make it easier to find. Cjrother (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- For the reasons that I have stated, I do not think this is a reliable source, and have replaced one citation from it with an equivalent from Corrigan, which is a more reliable source. Whilst you have been trying to improve this dreadful article, which is laudable, it would be justifiable for a wiki editor to either mark this as unreliable or to remove the content itself, in my opinion. Keith H99 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)