This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jagdschloss radar article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
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:
Needs to be broken up in sections, unbolded, unusual terms like "parabolic dish" or"PPI" linked, and the Notes section actually used for notes, not parenthetical comments. --
Gwern (contribs) 15:47
29 January2007 (GMT)
What has to be unbolded? I was under the impression that any "name" for an object being covered in the article should be bolded. Also, PPI is linked. And I'm not sure what you mean about the notes. In every book on writing style I've read, parenthetical are either supposed to be removed (because they break up reading flow, like this) or replaced by comma'ed sections, or removed to a footnote.
Maury18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)reply
The phrase Jadgschloss radar would be bolded, once, in the introduction since that is what the article is about, but you wouldn't bold every new term - you might italicize non-English words, but not one wouldn't bold them. The notes section is supposed to be for actual references, either simple bibliographic references or footnotes for specific pieces of text generated through use of
Wikipedia:Cite.php. As it is, the notes section is just some mildly interesting and disconnected stuff from the rest of the article. They don't seem to be referencing any assertions in particular, and so would probably be better off if you could incorporate them into the main body of text. --
Gwern (contribs) 19:41
29 January2007 (GMT)
I always used Notes for notes and References for References. I do see what you are talking about in the cite link, but that's a style I have yet to come across. Is this common? Can you suggest a better name than "notes" perhaps?
Maury20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)reply
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jagdschloss radar article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
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:
Needs to be broken up in sections, unbolded, unusual terms like "parabolic dish" or"PPI" linked, and the Notes section actually used for notes, not parenthetical comments. --
Gwern (contribs) 15:47
29 January2007 (GMT)
What has to be unbolded? I was under the impression that any "name" for an object being covered in the article should be bolded. Also, PPI is linked. And I'm not sure what you mean about the notes. In every book on writing style I've read, parenthetical are either supposed to be removed (because they break up reading flow, like this) or replaced by comma'ed sections, or removed to a footnote.
Maury18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)reply
The phrase Jadgschloss radar would be bolded, once, in the introduction since that is what the article is about, but you wouldn't bold every new term - you might italicize non-English words, but not one wouldn't bold them. The notes section is supposed to be for actual references, either simple bibliographic references or footnotes for specific pieces of text generated through use of
Wikipedia:Cite.php. As it is, the notes section is just some mildly interesting and disconnected stuff from the rest of the article. They don't seem to be referencing any assertions in particular, and so would probably be better off if you could incorporate them into the main body of text. --
Gwern (contribs) 19:41
29 January2007 (GMT)
I always used Notes for notes and References for References. I do see what you are talking about in the cite link, but that's a style I have yet to come across. Is this common? Can you suggest a better name than "notes" perhaps?
Maury20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)reply