Talk:John Kenneally

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Kenneally article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / British / European / World War II / Cold War C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

This article was created or added to during the Victoria Cross Reference Migration. It may contain material that was used with permission from victoriacross.net.

Copyvio obituaties

I've just blanked two obituaries as copyright violations. The first had this attached

The Times
Thu 28 September 2000
Reproduced with permission

but I reckeon that was from the origional html page, and therefore not aplicable to the wikipedia. If you know otherwise, feel free to bring the obituary from the page history. SeventyThree^(Talk) 18:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read this guy's book when I was a kid I remember he deserted the army and re enlisted in the guards. worth a mention?

Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ir5ac (talk • contribs) 11:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links in quotation

The following is stated in MOSQUOTE:

"Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."

Most English-speaking people know what the Commonwealth is and where the British Isles are so there is not much point in linking to them. The links to Lieutenant-Commander Esmonde and Captain Fegen don't violate the Wiki-principle and are a more elegant way of linking to their pages than the additional sentence at the end. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS policy wonk checking in here. Do the links to the others mentioned to the quote add any thing? I would state that if they don't warrant any additional mention in the article (did they work with the subject of this article, or are they somehow related?) then they don't warrant linking. On a seperate, but related topic, the bolding of the subject's name in the quote is inappropriate. Per WP:BOLD italics should be used to indicate emphasis, and if you are italicizing within a quote (which is generally frowned upon, but I think is warranted in this situation), you should add "(emphasis added)" after the quote. Livitup (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The justification for reversing my fix, as supplied by Unknown Unknowns, appears to be a misinterpretation of policy. I have since asked for clarification (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Links in quotations), and the expert view is that it was correct to remove all links from within the quotation. I have therefore reinstated the fix I did. I suggest that this should not be reverted again, but that if there is a need, the matter should be discussed further in the section of the MoS I have just given. DDStretch (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great to this outsider's eyes! Livitup (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]