User talk:MF SarahHorner: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:20, 20 June 2014

Welcome!

Hello, MF SarahHorner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Val Hennessy (June 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Draft:Val Hennessy.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! MF SarahHorner, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Val Hennessy (June 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Draft:Val Hennessy.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chris Troutman (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting to grips with the Talk Pages, Chris. Let's hope I get this right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Val_Hennessy I've amended the draft to show that Hennessy is notable on two counts - 1 for her longevity as Chief Literary Critic for the 25 years until 2004, reviewing 1000s of books. 2, she is a notable figure in the history of British women's writing for her place and contribution to the inaugural Orange Prize for Literature judging panel.

MF SarahHorner (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Val Hennessy (June 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

.

To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Timtrent ,

Thanks for your feedback and encouragement. I've done more work on third party references and cleaning up a mirrored reference. I've resubmitted. Maybe I'll make it through this time.

Regards

MF SarahHorner (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 90% sure the next reviewer will accept it. I tend not to re-review articles so forgive me if I stand by and watch. Fiddle Faddle 15:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! You created your Teahouse profile!

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. Happy Editing! ~ Anastasia (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citation checking

Took me a while to understand what inline citations mean, Fiddle Faddle. Links that go off to an external site without referencing right? Where these refer to the subject's own work, I've put them into an external links section. Another has been turned into a real reference and yet another has been amended as a wiki link. I'd find it helpful to have feedback on whether I've understood the original problem of inline citations correctly.

By the way - I've made some amends via a tablet. That was tricky. Won't do that again. Have to check it all through again on the laptop...

Many thanks MF SarahHorner (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sarah. I came here to talk about another issue but let me answer the question above first. It sounds like you understand but let me make it transparent. An inline citation is a footnote in the text, that displays as a references in the references section, i.e., this:^[1] When you were told "All inline links must be removed" (emphasis added) what was meant was that you should not have external links directly in the text, like NYT The latter should all be removed, or turned into inline citations (but of course, only if they verify the material where they appeared). As an example, I fixed one of those in my edits, changing:

"She continues to write for the Daily Mail's [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2553006/RETRO-READS.html Retro Reads] column." to

"She continues to write for the Daily Mail's "Retro Reads" column.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=Daily Mail|last1=Hennessy|first1=Val|title=Retro Reads|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2553006/RETRO-READS.html|date=6 February 2014}}</ref>

Back to what I came here about. On my copyedit I fixed all the footnotes to be outside of punctuation but it appears you've reversed that. Citations go outside of punctuation. Thus, it's never: Text^[1], or Text^[2]. and always Text,^[1] and Text.^[2] Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. in looking at the draft just now I see you had removed the Retro Reads citation and then returned it but that when you did so you changed "|date=6 February 2014" to "|accessdate=6 February 2014" That's not correct. An accessdate is the date you accessed the source and provides a record for non-paper sources – sources that are subject to change – of a date when the source verified the content, even if it has changed (it is thus unneeded for sources like a book, or newspaper article that was actually printed and not just digital). Here, 6 February 2014 is the date of the source and not the date you accessed it. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 Many thanks [[User:MF SarahHorner|MF SarahHorner]] ([[User talk:MF SarahHorner#top|talk]]) 06:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 :Hey Sarah. I came here to talk about another issue but let me answer the question above first. It sounds like you understand but let me make it transparent. An inline citation is a footnote in the text, that displays as a references in the references section, i.e., this:<sup>[<font color=#002BB8>1</font color>]</sup> When you were told "All inline ''<u>links</u>'' must be removed" (emphasis added) what was meant was that you should not have external links directly in the text, like [http://www.nytimes.com/ NYT] The latter should all be removed, or turned into inline citations (but of course, only if they [[WP:V|verify]] the material where they appeared). As an example, I fixed one of those in my edits, changing:<p>"<code>She continues to write for the Daily Mail's <nowiki>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2553006/RETRO-READS.html Retro Reads]</nowiki> column.</code>" to<p>"<code>She continues to write for the Daily Mail's "Retro Reads" column.<nowiki><ref>{{cite news|newspaper=Daily Mail|last1=Hennessy|first1=Val|title=Retro Reads|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2553006/RETRO-READS.html|date=6 February 2014}}</ref></nowiki></code><p>Back to what I came here about. On my copyedit I fixed all the footnotes to be outside of punctuation but it appears you've reversed that. Citations go outside of punctuation. Thus, it's never: Text<sup>[<font color=#002BB8>1</font color>]</sup>, or Text<sup>[<font color=#002BB8>2</font color>]</sup>. and always Text,<sup>[<font color=#002BB8>1</font color>]</sup> and Text.<sup>[<font color=#002BB8>2</font color>]</sup> Best regards--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 12:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
+::P.S. in looking at the draft just now I see you had removed the Retro Reads citation and then returned it but that when you did so you changed "<code>|date=6 February 2014</code>" to "<code>|accessdate=6 February 2014</code>" That's not correct. An accessdate is the date ''you'' accessed the source and provides a record for non-paper sources – sources that are subject to change – of a date when the source verified the content, even if it has changed (it is thus unneeded for sources like a book, or newspaper article that was actually printed and not just digital). Here, 6 February 2014 is the date of the source and not the date you accessed it. Cheers--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 12:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)