 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ISBN template in "Further reading" edit
A template added in April 2015 points out that the book listed under "Further reading" lacks an ISBN number. If the book was published in 1923, as the listing indicates, that was long before ISBN numbers were used. Can an ISBN number be assigned retroactively? If not, I think the template should be removed, since it does not apply. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Date of birth edit
A footnote for October 1, 1904, says,
Although her year of birth has been disputed, with some sources citing 1901, the majority of reliable sources ([1], [2], [3], [4]) clearly indicate 1904.
Unfortunately, none of the four sources linked in that note are considered reliable for use in Wikipedia articles. The first three links are actually from the same source, Family Search. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources classifies FamilySearch as "Generally unreliable". That page's summary about the source says, "FamilySearch operates a genealogy site that incorporates a large amount of user-generated content. Editors see no evidence that FamilySearch performs fact-checking, and believe that the site has a questionable reputation for accuracy. FamilySearch also hosts primary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations. When using primary source documents from FamilySearch, follow WP:BLPPRIMARY and avoid interpreting them with original research."
The fourth link in the list is for Find a Grave, which is listed as one of several sources of user-generated content. Wikipedia:Reliable sources#User-generated content says, in part, "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sites are Wikipedia (self referencing), Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Reddit, IMDb, Ancestry.com, Find a Grave, and ODMP."
Based on those two Wikipedia sources, I am removing the note quoted above. Perhaps a reliable source can be found to either verify the date currently in the article or support a different date.Eddie Blick (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)