There's A LOT of inconsistency in the reference section. Reference No. 1 does not have a retrieval date, yet reference No. 2 does. They all need to be consistent. The publications need to be listed consistently as well. Reference No. 1 is attributed to "Washington Post" , whereas reference no. 2 is attributed to "The Washington Post". I can see the same issue later on with "NewsWeek.com" and "NewsWeek". Reference No. 2 has the publishing company (Nash Holdings LLC), whereas reference No. 1 does not. You need to pick a specific format and then stick with it for every single reference.
Done
- Better, but there's still a few problems. There's still a lot of inconsistency with whether sources have retrieval dates. In reference No. 35 the retrieval date is actually formatted differently from all the rest (2017-09-23 - as apposed to other sources which say 'September 23, 2017'). You either need to have retrieval dates for all sources or none at all, and if you have them they all need the same date formatting.
- Reference No.35 is fixed.
Done on that one.
- Ok, but you still need to fix all the retrieval dates.
- I’ve fixed most of them to “date=“.
- Most isn't good enough, let me know when all of them are consistently formatted. Also are you aware of the difference between date= and accessdate=? So date= is the date the article was published. accessdate= is the date the article was last checked to see if it was still online. There are almost always two different dates. Accordingly you can have both, you just need to be consistent. So either have accessdates for every source of for none.
- All have been changed to “date=“. I’m aware with the differences between the 2.
- There's 11 sources that still have retrieval dates. The first one is reference No. 17 (Mack, Eric) and the last one is No. 49 (Mind reader with same name as David Meade receives death threats after failed prediction)
Several sources do not have dates though dates are readily available at the source itself. I.e the Kluger, Jeff source has no date though clicking on the link reveals it was published on September 19, 2017.
Done
You've fixed the example I gave, but I'm sure there are several more. Reference No. 6 isn't attributed to a date though clicking on the website clearly shows it was published on September 16, 2017. Have you clicked on every single reference without a date of publication and made sure they do not have a date of publication listed at the article?
I fixed reference 6 (changing url, publisher/work, added author name). I say the reference 6 part is Done.
Reference No. 6 isn't attributed to anyone at all. Why isn't this attributed to its publisher, Fox News? Same issue with reference No. 7. I'm not even going to point out the others. Make sure every reference is attributed to its publisher.
- I’ve added Fox News to work. I’ve Wikilinked it as well along with other references.
- Reference No. 42 ("North Korea, Yellowstone and Nukes Triggering Supervolcanoes") still isn't attributed to a publisher. Also I don't think the quote from the article in the reference "Why is David Meade predicting a Kim Jong-un nuclear attack on Yellowstone?" adds anything of value. I'd remove it. In general try not to add more information than is needed to references.
- Fixed the Yellowstone part.
Done
- Also hows reference 2?
- Reference 2? The Guarino, Ben one? Well I'm really confused as to why you've listed
Jeff Bezos as the publisher. It's my understanding he's not the publisher, he's the owner. Also if you're going to list the publisher as well as the work for one reference you should make an effort to do it for all of them. It's not a requirement to have both, and there is an exemption to the rule whereby you shouldn't list both if they are pretty much exactly the same. So if the work is Time magazine and the publisher is Time Inc. you wouldn't have to list both.
On a similar note, you need to present all the publishers in the same manner. For example, you can't list half with their common name (I.e "The Washington Post") and others with their base url in lower case (I.e "coasttocoastam"). The later needs to reformatted to
Coast to Coast AM. Every single publisher listed in lowercase needs to be reformatted to how you would describe the website if you were writing it in a sentence. Wikilink where possible.
Done
- Go through and make sure one by one that they have all been fixed. I can see at least one that hasn't been (I.e politicianreviews).
- Fixed the politicianreviews part to Politician Reviews
Checklinks find a few issues, nothing major though:
[2]
Also anything in brackets in a wikilink should be
piped out. So
Time (magazine) should be changed to just
Time.
Inverse (website) should be changed to just
Inverse.
Done
Why is the authors name in Reference No. 21 (JERRY GADIANO) all in capitals? And why is the there a date in brackets in the title? Also reference No. 19 and Reference No. 21 are the same reference. Get rid of one and format the other accordingly so you can use one reference twice as opposed to having two identical ones.
- Fixed both parts.
- Don't forget you can give a reference a name so that it can be used multiple times yet still only appear once in the reference list, like reference No. 1 and No. 2 does. This is completely OK, just don't use the same reference twice so that it appears twice in the reference list.
Reference No. 42 (Paul Seaburn) lists the work as "Mysterious Universe" and the website as "mysteriousuniverse.org.". You don't need both, so drop the 'website' parameter. Same issue with 'Glenn Beck' and glennbeck.com.
Done
- There's still one instance of glennbeck.com alongside 'Glenn Beck'.
Done
When you look through the references, note that some of the publishers are listed in italics (I.e The Washington Post), while others are not (I.e Canada Free Press). This is because some reference use the 'work=' parameter, which displays italics, and others use the 'publisher=' parameter, which does not. This, like everything else, needs to be consistent. It is possible for a reference to have both the work= and publisher= parameters filled out, however, when it comes to websites you need to have a consistent policy on which one of these parameters you use if the source is only attributed to one website/journal/newspaper etc.
- What about now?
- I'm seeing two instances of 'Glenn Beck', one of 'Mysterious Universe', one of 'Discloce.tv', two of 'International Business Times' and one of 'Canada Free Press' not appearing in italics.
Done
There's some inconsistency in how sources are listed as self-published. Some say 'Self-published on [publisher]', one says 'self-published by David Meade' (this also needs a capital on 'Self') and one just says 'self-published' (again, with no capital). These need to be formatted consistently. Since David Meade is already listed as the author, saying 'self-published by David Meade' is a bit redundant. I'd either say 'Self-published on [publisher]' or just 'Self-published'. When I do the source review I may challenge whether these sources should be used at all though.
Done
Most of your references use first= and last= parameters. Two however are using author=. When you use first= and last= it automatically formats the last name first, followed by a comma and the first name in the reference. When you use author=, it displays the authors name exactly as you've written it in the parameter. Due to this you've got most of your sources appearing like this: 'Darnay, Keith', but then you've got two formatted differently: 'Christopher M. Graney' and 'James David Manning'. Like everything else in the references, this needs to be formatted consistently. If you're unsure what to do with the middle name, just have it follow the first name in the first= parameter. So in this case you should format it "|first=James David |last=Manning".
I don't think Christians In Pakistan is a reliable source. Also if the article is attributed to something like 'Web Desk' don't format those words as if there were someones name. Just leave the author blank, or attribute it to something like 'Staff'.
Done
|