Talk:Army Beta

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States / World War I 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: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force World War I task force

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Army Beta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010041652/http://official-asvab.com:80/history_rec.htm to http://official-asvab.com/history_rec.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the detailed validity data that Grayfell removed on 25 March 2019 because it was from primary sources and data and was more detailed than the information he replaced it with. Yes, I cited one of my own articles^[1] in the section, but I cited two other books not authored by me to prevent excessive self-citation. Cassmus (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit presented your own study as significant without any secondary support. Wikipedia strongly favors

WP:EDITORIALIZING language, also. Do not re-add this until consensus has been formed. Grayfell (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]