Talk:CFB Shilo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CFB Shilo has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Canadian military history task force

IE has "crashed" this page on me TWICE now when I click "preview" to give it a look before saving. Both occurences were after spending a lot of time writing the article. I may just make a CfD myself if it happend again. Weaponofmassinstruction 05:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More context, please.

The article needs a one line introduction and context info. What is a CFB, and why, as a random encyclopedia reader, do I care about it? Also, it should probably be linked to an article on the general topic of CFBs. Looks like a good beginning, though. JesseW 05:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Further introductory data added. Thank you for your suggestion.

If I may ask, is it that common for people to read encyclopedias randomly, expecting to find things they care about, or do most people use them as an organized information resource, containing the information they seek and a ton of information they could care less about, in order to make connections between their own known, unknown, and suspected knowledge? Weaponofmassinstruction 05:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

People do both, really. — mark ✎ 08:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)