![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anyone working on this, please add to this list and sign, and strike out when done and sign. Don't chat here please...make new section. Thanks. :) Revent ( talk) 04:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I will go over this list when I have time. I apologize that my time is limited right now, but thank you, Revent, for the effort you've made here. My concern is to be sure that any content which consists of quotes from public domain sources is in quotes and properly credited and referenced. Otherwise, we have some issues to deal with. If this is truly original content, then all is OK. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to knock off in a bit, read or something, maybe fix some bios later. Re 'phrasing' or sourcing concerns. The NHRP 'application' is a tertiary source, basically like an encyclopedia entry, with the 'peer review' being a bunch of bureaucrats. It has a extensive bibliography. :) And it's PD anyhow, it's on a government form filed with the govt. We just can't plagarize it. You don't have copyright on your filled out tax return, lol. I know how to address it, as far as cites. Revent ( talk) 07:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
After carefully reading the exact phrasing of the NPS disclaimer, I've marked only the actual form itself (not the enclosures) as PD. The way the disclaimer is written is kinda convoluted. Revent ( talk) 18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
As stated here, "Making this article (specifically, doing all the text) is part of a graduate school assignment". Wikipedia:School and university projects applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
After taking a break, sleep, working on other pages, etc. I think how this is done needs rethought. There are actually several different documents enclosed in that PDF. The first page, the actual nomination form, is the source of which criteria the school was approved under. What is cited as sections 7 and 8 are actually separate documents, written by other people and attributed on the form, that were filed as enclosures in the filing. They need to be cited separately, and doing so will get rid of the whole (section, page) issue. Thoughts?
Revent (
talk) 13:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I've redone this, per
WP:LDR for readability of the code, and with a 'grouped' set of citations to the separate works inside the actual published PDF. My 'annotations' probably need rewriting.
Revent (
talk)
04:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, the sources need traced as much as possible, as the enclosures are third-party, and have EXTENSIVE bibliographies. As much as possible needs to be sourced to those, instead of the actual enclosures. Revent ( talk) 18:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't like the way the NRISref template does this.
This is only used for the reference number, and the link points to the search page, not the actual page that gives the data. This is an issue with the template, though, not something to fix here. Revent ( talk) 14:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm continuing to watch this, and will be making occasional changes as they occur to me. Since Gags is 'overdue' at this point (end of semester), a watcher rewriting my 'contributer notes' in the template at the top of the article would be good, though I don't really know how to phrase it in a 'more appropriate' manner ATM. I'm not expecting to do anything that needs me to lock the article (like when I was formatting the citations and tracking down the 'original' text to verify they were all to the correct location).
Revent ( talk) 04:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I've edited the tables on the relevant 'list articles' (look at the navbox) to include the image from the infobox, and a brief description. Feedback on if the outside picture would look better in that context, please. Also, added to the Rittenhouse disambiguation list. I'd assumed that typing 'rittenhouse' in the search box would come here. Who would have thunk it? :) Feedback on my phrasing there would also be nice. Revent ( talk) 05:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anyone working on this, please add to this list and sign, and strike out when done and sign. Don't chat here please...make new section. Thanks. :) Revent ( talk) 04:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I will go over this list when I have time. I apologize that my time is limited right now, but thank you, Revent, for the effort you've made here. My concern is to be sure that any content which consists of quotes from public domain sources is in quotes and properly credited and referenced. Otherwise, we have some issues to deal with. If this is truly original content, then all is OK. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to knock off in a bit, read or something, maybe fix some bios later. Re 'phrasing' or sourcing concerns. The NHRP 'application' is a tertiary source, basically like an encyclopedia entry, with the 'peer review' being a bunch of bureaucrats. It has a extensive bibliography. :) And it's PD anyhow, it's on a government form filed with the govt. We just can't plagarize it. You don't have copyright on your filled out tax return, lol. I know how to address it, as far as cites. Revent ( talk) 07:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
After carefully reading the exact phrasing of the NPS disclaimer, I've marked only the actual form itself (not the enclosures) as PD. The way the disclaimer is written is kinda convoluted. Revent ( talk) 18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
As stated here, "Making this article (specifically, doing all the text) is part of a graduate school assignment". Wikipedia:School and university projects applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
After taking a break, sleep, working on other pages, etc. I think how this is done needs rethought. There are actually several different documents enclosed in that PDF. The first page, the actual nomination form, is the source of which criteria the school was approved under. What is cited as sections 7 and 8 are actually separate documents, written by other people and attributed on the form, that were filed as enclosures in the filing. They need to be cited separately, and doing so will get rid of the whole (section, page) issue. Thoughts?
Revent (
talk) 13:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I've redone this, per
WP:LDR for readability of the code, and with a 'grouped' set of citations to the separate works inside the actual published PDF. My 'annotations' probably need rewriting.
Revent (
talk)
04:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, the sources need traced as much as possible, as the enclosures are third-party, and have EXTENSIVE bibliographies. As much as possible needs to be sourced to those, instead of the actual enclosures. Revent ( talk) 18:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't like the way the NRISref template does this.
This is only used for the reference number, and the link points to the search page, not the actual page that gives the data. This is an issue with the template, though, not something to fix here. Revent ( talk) 14:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm continuing to watch this, and will be making occasional changes as they occur to me. Since Gags is 'overdue' at this point (end of semester), a watcher rewriting my 'contributer notes' in the template at the top of the article would be good, though I don't really know how to phrase it in a 'more appropriate' manner ATM. I'm not expecting to do anything that needs me to lock the article (like when I was formatting the citations and tracking down the 'original' text to verify they were all to the correct location).
Revent ( talk) 04:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I've edited the tables on the relevant 'list articles' (look at the navbox) to include the image from the infobox, and a brief description. Feedback on if the outside picture would look better in that context, please. Also, added to the Rittenhouse disambiguation list. I'd assumed that typing 'rittenhouse' in the search box would come here. Who would have thunk it? :) Feedback on my phrasing there would also be nice. Revent ( talk) 05:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)