I am not sure that this article goes into enough detail on the content of this publication. Maybe you could add sections about any paticuarly notable articles in the Portland Monthly (have there been any?) and maybe more on the features of the magazine.
Anonymous101 (
talk)
20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Please see
WP:LEAD. The intro/lead is a summary of the rest of the article, and as everything in that lead is sourced later in the article (as you noted above) to
WP:RS/
WP:V sources, no need to have duplicate citations in the lead. Cirt (
talk)
20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
In the course of my research I have not found
WP:RS/
WP:V secondary sources that delve into detail about any particular articles by the Portland Monthly. What you see in the article itself at the time being is the result of research and searches through multiple database archives, and the
WP:RS/
WP:V secondary sources present already in the article is what I was able to come up with. Cirt (
talk)
20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Regarding a section on the website - See my prior point, I would love to have more info on this but there is not much else out there in secondary sources. Cirt (
talk)
20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Regarding the GA article The Wall Street Journal, you are correct it is pretty poorly referenced and probably shouldn't even be a GA anymore. Not really the best model to use, IMO - but even so as I stated above even if it were to be used as a model for something, not much other info out there in secondary sources to draw from. Cirt (
talk)
20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I am not sure that this article goes into enough detail on the content of this publication. Maybe you could add sections about any paticuarly notable articles in the Portland Monthly (have there been any?) and maybe more on the features of the magazine.
Anonymous101 (
talk)
20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Please see
WP:LEAD. The intro/lead is a summary of the rest of the article, and as everything in that lead is sourced later in the article (as you noted above) to
WP:RS/
WP:V sources, no need to have duplicate citations in the lead. Cirt (
talk)
20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
In the course of my research I have not found
WP:RS/
WP:V secondary sources that delve into detail about any particular articles by the Portland Monthly. What you see in the article itself at the time being is the result of research and searches through multiple database archives, and the
WP:RS/
WP:V secondary sources present already in the article is what I was able to come up with. Cirt (
talk)
20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Regarding a section on the website - See my prior point, I would love to have more info on this but there is not much else out there in secondary sources. Cirt (
talk)
20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Regarding the GA article The Wall Street Journal, you are correct it is pretty poorly referenced and probably shouldn't even be a GA anymore. Not really the best model to use, IMO - but even so as I stated above even if it were to be used as a model for something, not much other info out there in secondary sources to draw from. Cirt (
talk)
20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)reply