A fact from Wrangell Bombardment appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 November 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw 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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An excellnet map may be found at the end of here - [1] in "Appendix I: GIS Topographical Map of the Battlefield" - if any map/copyright expert wants to reproduce - hats off.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
You might also want to use these (sources in this article) - [2][3] and (this is an MA thesis - but an MA thesis by a notable person in the field (went on to greater things) who also setup Alaska's prison system, it has quite a few citations) - [4]. Note that there are two distinct phases - Up to 1900 people were tried by the army or in miners' courts. After 1900 - when criminal and civil codes were established in the territory - the justice system was more organized. Note the death penalty was abolished two years prior to statehood. I might chip in a bit, but I think I'm going to write up a few more 19th century articles before doing any major work. In regards to this article - the authority of the army to court-martial civilians for non-federal cases (alcohol was federal, murder not) - probably should be expanded - I understand it was later determined (in court and in legal opinion) that they did not have the authority (and this may have caused the creation of miners' courts) - but this requires some legal footwork here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I went on and fixed some of the sources by adding them as full citations, per WP:CITE. Using my updates as a guideline, can anyone update the rest? Please include the pages as well (let me know if you need help with that). Thanks! MX (✉ • ✎) 02:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
@MX: I'm all for improvement (though note that the ref tag is a full citation - and is as acceptable as the structured cite (I prefer to enter these as ref, have no objection cite - and happy to see improvements!)), however there are two problems with the changes you made:
Please do not change ref names from something comprehensible (e.g. "Jones") to something arbitrary and not (e.g. ":0") - this makes it very difficult to edit the article afterwards (e.g. fix the cns you placed in the footnotes!). Somebody put in a bit of work with the original ref names and remembers them (e.g. by Author) - and using arbitrary numbers is not something easy to remember. (using a :0 would be good practice when replacing a ref with no name - however all the refs in this article (that were used more than once) were named coherently.
You modified a bunch of ref tags that were referring to journal articles (admittedly some not so clear) to cite web - throwing away the information of which journal they came from. e.g. this diff - [5] - you took something that was specified as being published in "Ariz. L. Rev. 31 (1989)" (Arizona Law Review, volume 31) - and modified it to being published by CUNY School of Law - which is incorrect (Sidney Harring is a professor at CUNY, CUNY was not the publisher - though CUNY did make available the original article online on CUNY Academic Works).
(1) Ah, yes. This happened because I was editing via VisualEditor (since I feel it is a lot quicker to fill up sources that way), and for some reason, it does that instead of giving you the option to change it on the spot as it does in the Edit Source option.
(2) My apologies. I stopped halfway because I wasn't sure if the sources I was adding were in the correct format. Though the point I was trying to get across is that most sources were sitting in an inappropriate format, like Source #6.
Please let me know how I can further assist. Thank you for pointing out my mistakes and explaining why. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 12:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Fixed ref6 (I'm often sloppy with refs - this was directly copy-pasted from the archive title (which wasn't bad (it did say where it came from), but should've been separated properly and Twain's newspaper should've been wikified) - I mainly source edit directly, so I tend to use the ref tag since that way I don't have to remember all the sub-tag field names) - if there are other issues - more than happy if you correct yourself or point them out and I will (just keep the ref names intact or usable - they were useful in filling out the 14 refs in the footnotes per your earlier CNs, :-)....). Cheers.Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
