This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 20, 2016. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SlimVirgin ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| ||
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |||
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |||
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |||
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |||
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |||
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |||
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |||
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Looks good to go. |
Hi J Milburn, just a note to say that I'm enjoying reading this. I've posted some suggestions and I'll continue with the review tomorrow. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I think everything you raised has been fixed (apart from the "radical" point, which I hope I have explained). I've also expanded the lead a little and added a picture of Carol Adams. J Milburn ( talk) 16:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Currently the citation style used is in dispute. Style guides in general are clear that internally to an article, style changes need to be discussed first. I cannot see any real argument for one over the other at the moment. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Can I ask why you are messing with the citations in this article? It just went through FAC, where there was an enormous fight about citation formats. Is swooping in and changing them really the best move? Josh Milburn ( talk) 19:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
… I strongly resent the HEY-YOU-FIX-SOMETHING-I-WANT-YOU-TO banner … The first I object to for obvious reasons: templating a new FA is exceedingly bad form, and demanding ISBNs in references is ridiculous.
Anyway: If you're going to enter the conversation by accusing me of violating ownership guidelines because I reverted your edit which was in clear violation of WP:CITEVAR, I can't express confidence that we're going to get anywhere productive.
Did you change the citation style? The answer is yes.
These are courtesy links to journal articles. We're citing the journal article, not the webpage. There is a long-standing consensus that courtesy links do not require access dates.
"Moving {{ open access}} to after the link in question;" Yes, I object to that. That's changing citation styles without good reason, and is completely contrary to the use described at {{ open access}}. In future, please review template documentation before attempting to use templates with which you are unfamiliar.
After a
<ref>
tag and a citation template such as {{ cite journal}}, add:
- a space
- then {{ open access}}
- then a closing
</ref>
tag.
"The addition of links to author/editor links: Their use was previously inconsistent. I don't, however, have particularly strong feelings about the issue of red links or the inclusion of [[]]
to create red links;" I do, for the reasons I have explained.
Your use of the template very clearly indicates that you hold that ISBNs must be added to this article.
You say that "It seems beyond silly that one would specifically want them excluded"; I agree, and I don't specifically want them excluded.
It is standard in animal ethics to avoid the word "animal" to refer exclusively to non-human animals. This is an inaccurate use of the term, as humans are also animals. It would be like saying "table" to mean "all tables except blue tables". Rather than following this standard throughout the article, I added "non-human" only at the first mention. This is also Cochrane's own practice. Josh Milburn ( talk) 23:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 20, 2016. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SlimVirgin ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| ||
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |||
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |||
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |||
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |||
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |||
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |||
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |||
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Looks good to go. |
Hi J Milburn, just a note to say that I'm enjoying reading this. I've posted some suggestions and I'll continue with the review tomorrow. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I think everything you raised has been fixed (apart from the "radical" point, which I hope I have explained). I've also expanded the lead a little and added a picture of Carol Adams. J Milburn ( talk) 16:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Currently the citation style used is in dispute. Style guides in general are clear that internally to an article, style changes need to be discussed first. I cannot see any real argument for one over the other at the moment. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Can I ask why you are messing with the citations in this article? It just went through FAC, where there was an enormous fight about citation formats. Is swooping in and changing them really the best move? Josh Milburn ( talk) 19:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
… I strongly resent the HEY-YOU-FIX-SOMETHING-I-WANT-YOU-TO banner … The first I object to for obvious reasons: templating a new FA is exceedingly bad form, and demanding ISBNs in references is ridiculous.
Anyway: If you're going to enter the conversation by accusing me of violating ownership guidelines because I reverted your edit which was in clear violation of WP:CITEVAR, I can't express confidence that we're going to get anywhere productive.
Did you change the citation style? The answer is yes.
These are courtesy links to journal articles. We're citing the journal article, not the webpage. There is a long-standing consensus that courtesy links do not require access dates.
"Moving {{ open access}} to after the link in question;" Yes, I object to that. That's changing citation styles without good reason, and is completely contrary to the use described at {{ open access}}. In future, please review template documentation before attempting to use templates with which you are unfamiliar.
After a
<ref>
tag and a citation template such as {{ cite journal}}, add:
- a space
- then {{ open access}}
- then a closing
</ref>
tag.
"The addition of links to author/editor links: Their use was previously inconsistent. I don't, however, have particularly strong feelings about the issue of red links or the inclusion of [[]]
to create red links;" I do, for the reasons I have explained.
Your use of the template very clearly indicates that you hold that ISBNs must be added to this article.
You say that "It seems beyond silly that one would specifically want them excluded"; I agree, and I don't specifically want them excluded.
It is standard in animal ethics to avoid the word "animal" to refer exclusively to non-human animals. This is an inaccurate use of the term, as humans are also animals. It would be like saying "table" to mean "all tables except blue tables". Rather than following this standard throughout the article, I added "non-human" only at the first mention. This is also Cochrane's own practice. Josh Milburn ( talk) 23:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)