Talk:Salcombe Cannon Wreck
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page. |
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale. |
|
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:
|
|
Has any one checked Moor Sands for the graves of the Moors? As it seems that the bodies probably washed up on these sands.
The wreck is dated between 1630 and 1640. The Spanish Reconquista finished well before this... Has anyone contacted Mosques in the African ports of this time to find Mosques records of missing ships?
Γνώθι Σεαυτόν 05:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Correct ISSN for References
References 4 and 5 on the article's page are tagged as having incorrect ISSNs. The references currently are listed like this:
Nautical Archaeology, the newsletter of the Nautical Archaeology Society, 2004.3 pp8,9, ISSN 0602-6098
Nautical Archaeology, the newsletter of the Nautical Archaeology Society, 2005.2 p3, ISSN 0602-6098
I believe the correct ISSN for the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (IJNA) is 1057-2414. I do not have quick access to this journal myself, though, so I am not 100% certain that the source I've identified is the one referenced in the article. I will leave the article alone for a few days, and try to find someone who can confirm my findings. If I hear nothing, I'm inclined to update the reference with the ISSN I've identified. Keesiewonder 23:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Don't change it to IJNA - that is a different volume. The reference is to Nautical Archaeology - the newsletter, not the journal, and the ISSN that appears on it is as quoted. I will try to find out more Viv Hamilton 15:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent. I'll leave it alone. Perhaps, then, the ISSN is correct (as you have said) and whomever tagged it as being wrong was wrong ... Hopefully you'll be able to see a copy of the newsletter yourself, which will clear everything up! Keesiewonder 16:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC) ... Of course, I now see [1] . In an instance such as this, can we then just remove the invalid tag ... since it appears that though an invalid number, it is the one the publication uses? Keesiewonder 16:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
