Editing Talk:Paul Marik I
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision
Your text
Line 1:
Line 1: − #REDIRECT [[Talk:Paul Marik (30th c.)]] + {{WikiProject Biographies|tr=new}} + + ==Review Request== + I stumbled across this article via the random page function on the wiki, and made an attempt to clean it up after reading likely sourcebooks for Paul Marik I; I'm not familiar with exactly what the requirements are for removing stub and/or cleanup markers on articles are, and I'm very conscious I may have reference'd this piece to death given the paucity of material on Paul Marik. I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at this sometime and let me know if what I've done is correct and acceptable - if it is, I can potter away at other minor characters whenever I get a few minutes free. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] 10:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC) + :Good morning, BrokenMnemonic. I'm going to restrict my involvement to my comments here, rather than making changes to the article, so that you can get the experience I believe you want. + :First off, we are very tolerant of people making mistakes here (which is a complaint by some non-contributing users, ironically). As long as people don't take absolute stands ("don't change my edits", "''this'' is the way is needs to be", etc.), we encourage people to '''[[Policy:Bold|Be Bold]]'''. We'd rather correct your mistakes than have you refrain from making changes. + :The article: + :# Stubs: some articles will always be stubs. Sometimes, there just isn't enough (official) information (yet) on a subject to get it over that hump. Don't worry about those. + :# Cleanup tags: it's up to the eye of the beholder. If you've made as many copyedits as the article needs, feel free to remove the tag and know you improved it to the point it doesn't need further cleanup. + :# Referencing: you did just fine. Better than fine, in my opinion, because you indicated where every fact you stated could be originally found, which is a goal of our project. If a complete paragraph comes from only one source, feel free to cite only at the end of the paragraph. However, when using multiple sources, the chronological nature of the article may require citing within the paragraph, which you did. For the fact sheet, I've notices some writers/editors will put the citations on the line under the last entry ("Died during a planetary assault", in this case). I like that style, but I would still do it the same way you did. + :# Fact sheet: in this case, I don't think the article warrants it. You've ensured all the facts are built into the article; there's no real reason to call them out again as trivia points. I believe the two previous writers (both non-native English speakers) were attempting to get facts down for follow-on writers to properly present (which you did). I would delete it. + :Overall, I think you did a great job of meeting our Manual of Style. The article is not an award winner, but that's because of the lack of available content. However, it does provide a standard other writers can use as a reference. In fact, I'd suggest you save a link to this on your user page, so you ''can'' use it as a reference for later articles (as well as your "I Love Me" list of contributions ([[User:Revanche#About_Me|example]]) to BTW). Thanks for doing a bang-up job.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC) + ::Good evening! Thank you for the detailed comment - it's both helpful and reassuring. + ::I've been careful with the mercenary unit edits I've been making to make sure that I cite references either by paragraph where only one source is involved, or by statement/fact where different sources are involved. I've been trying to make sure that if something's quoted in more than one source, I list both, so that if there's a conflict, all the sources can be weighed up. I was conscious that even in this short article, there's potentially a conflict - [[House Marik (The Free Worlds League)]] indicates Paul Marik was a sober individual, but [[Handbook: House Marik]] indicates that the [[LCCC]] considered him reckless. It's not impossible for someone to be both, but it seemed a good idea to make sure the sentence and paragraph structure made sense without being subject to too many reference marks mid-sentence, so that the flow of the text makes sense. + ::I've tried reformatting my user page as per your example... I'm a reserved Brit, so it may take me a while for me to make it a proper "I Love Me" page, but I like the idea that it's a good way for me to keep track of articles done well that I can use as templates for future articles. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] 18:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | # | + | {{WikiProject Biographies|tr=new}} |
| + | |||
| + | ==Review Request== | ||
| + | I stumbled across this article via the random page function on the wiki, and made an attempt to clean it up after reading likely sourcebooks for Paul Marik I; I'm not familiar with exactly what the requirements are for removing stub and/or cleanup markers on articles are, and I'm very conscious I may have reference'd this piece to death given the paucity of material on Paul Marik. I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at this sometime and let me know if what I've done is correct and acceptable - if it is, I can potter away at other minor characters whenever I get a few minutes free. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] 10:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Good morning, BrokenMnemonic. I'm going to restrict my involvement to my comments here, rather than making changes to the article, so that you can get the experience I believe you want. | ||
| + | :First off, we are very tolerant of people making mistakes here (which is a complaint by some non-contributing users, ironically). As long as people don't take absolute stands ("don't change my edits", "''this'' is the way is needs to be", etc.), we encourage people to '''[[Policy:Bold|Be Bold]]'''. We'd rather correct your mistakes than have you refrain from making changes. | ||
| + | :The article: | ||
| + | :# Stubs: some articles will always be stubs. Sometimes, there just isn't enough (official) information (yet) on a subject to get it over that hump. Don't worry about those. | ||
| + | :# Cleanup tags: it's up to the eye of the beholder. If you've made as many copyedits as the article needs, feel free to remove the tag and know you improved it to the point it doesn't need further cleanup. | ||
| + | :# Referencing: you did just fine. Better than fine, in my opinion, because you indicated where every fact you stated could be originally found, which is a goal of our project. If a complete paragraph comes from only one source, feel free to cite only at the end of the paragraph. However, when using multiple sources, the chronological nature of the article may require citing within the paragraph, which you did. For the fact sheet, I've notices some writers/editors will put the citations on the line under the last entry ("Died during a planetary assault", in this case). I like that style, but I would still do it the same way you did. | ||
| + | :# Fact sheet: in this case, I don't think the article warrants it. You've ensured all the facts are built into the article; there's no real reason to call them out again as trivia points. I believe the two previous writers (both non-native English speakers) were attempting to get facts down for follow-on writers to properly present (which you did). I would delete it. | ||
| + | :Overall, I think you did a great job of meeting our Manual of Style. The article is not an award winner, but that's because of the lack of available content. However, it does provide a standard other writers can use as a reference. In fact, I'd suggest you save a link to this on your user page, so you ''can'' use it as a reference for later articles (as well as your "I Love Me" list of contributions ([[User:Revanche#About_Me|example]]) to BTW). Thanks for doing a bang-up job.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::Good evening! Thank you for the detailed comment - it's both helpful and reassuring. | ||
| + | ::I've been careful with the mercenary unit edits I've been making to make sure that I cite references either by paragraph where only one source is involved, or by statement/fact where different sources are involved. I've been trying to make sure that if something's quoted in more than one source, I list both, so that if there's a conflict, all the sources can be weighed up. I was conscious that even in this short article, there's potentially a conflict - [[House Marik (The Free Worlds League)]] indicates Paul Marik was a sober individual, but [[Handbook: House Marik]] indicates that the [[LCCC]] considered him reckless. It's not impossible for someone to be both, but it seemed a good idea to make sure the sentence and paragraph structure made sense without being subject to too many reference marks mid-sentence, so that the flow of the text makes sense. | ||
| + | ::I've tried reformatting my user page as per your example... I'm a reserved Brit, so it may take me a while for me to make it a proper "I Love Me" page, but I like the idea that it's a good way for me to keep track of articles done well that I can use as templates for future articles. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] 18:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC) | ||