User talk:Beyond My Ken: Difference between revisions
m Reverted edits by 91.10.37.58 (talk) to last version by Beyond My Ken |
Vleermuisman (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
:V: It doesn't matter if it's "blatant" or not, you're going to need a source to support it. If it's that obvious (I'm not doubting you), finding a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that says it won't be a problem. Best, [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken#top|talk]]) 18:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
:V: It doesn't matter if it's "blatant" or not, you're going to need a source to support it. If it's that obvious (I'm not doubting you), finding a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that says it won't be a problem. Best, [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken#top|talk]]) 18:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
::On second thought, I think it's OK as description and not anaylsis. I removed "highly", though. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken#top|talk]]) 18:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
::On second thought, I think it's OK as description and not anaylsis. I removed "highly", though. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken#top|talk]]) 18:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
Hi Ken, |
|||
I've just revised and publsihed my addition to the Raymond Hood article -- in the same spirit as my revision of my contribution to the Ely Jacques Kahn article. Check it out and let me know if it's OK. I'll soon get to work on that little addition to the article on (Hood's) Daily News Building. |
|||
[[User:Vleermuisman|Vleermuisman]] ([[User talk:Vleermuisman|talk]]) 06:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:13, 15 September 2012
 |
|
(Thanks to Alan Liefting)
Hi Ken, Thanks for your comments. I'm completely new to this business of editing Wikipedia articles so please bear with me. I've revised my addition to the Ely Jacques Kahn article. I believe now that (aside from direct quotes between quotation marks) the information taken from the online article by Frank Heynick is not only nowhere presented verbatim but is conveyed with sufficiently original phrasing. (The source is, of course, attributed.) I look forward to your feedback. If you agree with the above, I will get to work on the Raymond Hood article and the Daily News Building article and revise them similarly. Best, "Vleermuisman" Vleermuisman (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Very much better, no copyvios that I could find. I did a little editing on it, added wikilinks, and took out some of what we call original research - which basically means unsourced personal opinion. It seems pretty good now, so I look forward to your re-dos of the other two articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Ken, I believe ti's essential to mention that the fictional Guy Francon was highly classicist in architectural style. (This is blatant in the novel, not a matter of interpretation or opinion.) So I'm adding something in the appropriate place. Also, a typo "based in large measure from" becomes "based in large measure on." Vleermuisman Vleermuisman (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- V: It doesn't matter if it's "blatant" or not, you're going to need a source to support it. If it's that obvious (I'm not doubting you), finding a reliable source that says it won't be a problem. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- On second thought, I think it's OK as description and not anaylsis. I removed "highly", though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ken, I've just revised and publsihed my addition to the Raymond Hood article -- in the same spirit as my revision of my contribution to the Ely Jacques Kahn article. Check it out and let me know if it's OK. I'll soon get to work on that little addition to the article on (Hood's) Daily News Building. Vleermuisman (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)