Talk:156th Infantry Division (France)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 156th Infantry Division (France) 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Military History Wikiproject assessment, August 2021 edit
@User: Keith_H99: You recently requested this article to be reassessed to B class. However, while you expanded the article, there is little to no context offered on the troops actions (what did they mean, how effective were they?) etc. throughout the article. I think a good goal would be to have 2-3 sentences per movement/action. Furthermore, there are plenty of templates [[1]] available for MilHist purposes, I recommend you add the one on units to this article. Finally, many of the movements/actions are unreferenced. While tedious, it is helpful for all of them to be cited, or if more convenient, to be grouped in a paragraph. Please attempt to follow the example set by articles such as [[2]] or any other in [[3]]'s "military units" section. Warm regards.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 21:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Military History Wikiproject assessment, October 2021 edit
Follow on from User_talk:Vami_IV#Reassessment_of_156th_Infantry_Division_(France)
@User: Vami IV: Thank you for taking the time to give further explanation. I would ask that you undo the instances of the citation needed template within the "Creation and nomenclature" header, as all three line items are taken from the same page of the official history, the link for which is below.
As you can see, the same page as above is the same source for the "Commanders" header too. I had neglected to add this as a citation, so I will be doing that. Whilst I do see forum posts as potentially dubious, if the post itself is citing primary or secondary sources, I would see this as worthy of use, and avoiding a cyclical "the internet says.." claim which cannot be backed by source-based evidence. Keith H99 (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)