Talk:A Note To You

Content

Is there any more content to be added? -Reagle (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There is! Will be up by Sunday. Jessicashamma (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Suggestions

It might be helpful for the reader to add an Info Box as a quick summary of the page. Another thing I noticed was a seeming inconsistency in regards to italics versus quotations when referring to other works. I'm not sure which is the preferred Wikipedia standard, but I would imagine italics are preferable. I made a few quick changes to italicize plays that had neither italics, nor quotes. Another change to add extra reader value (and help to become better enmeshed in the Wikipedia community) would be to link to other pages or include a section of related topics with a "See Also" section. I added the beginnings of this section, but there are probably some other good connecting articles to link to (plays they covered, for example). Overall, I would echo what Professor Reagle said - it seems as if there's a lot more content needed to fully flesh out the page. It would be a good start to include the background of the professor, reception to the show, and maybe the show's legacy. Look to other Wikis that cover plays as a starting reference point. Good luck! Tylercpetersen (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tyler! Will definitely work on that. More content will be up ASAP. Also to note, that this is a radio show, not a play, I'll comb through and make sure I'm more clear. Jessicashamma (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice research! You did a good job with finding historical Globe articles, going beyond the summary on the finding aid, which is nice to see. You also did a nice job of formatting your references and I did see a few issues:

• A few areas where you could paraphrase the finding aid a little more. It's hard to not copy some of the finding aid phrasing! However, it's important to make sure you're not copying whole phrases without quotation marks, and its best to incorporate the finding aid info with all of your other good sources.
• You have a few extra sources that aren't referenced in the body of the article itself. I think you've got a very good base of research to start, so I imagine just sticking with the sources you have and incorporating those into the main article will leave you in good shape.
• You could move a little bit of the leader info into the body of the article text. The leader, as a summary of the article highlights, would generally be a bit shorter than the article body. For example, some of the history of the show could be expanded on a little (just a sentence or two) and added to the main body.
• There is this quote from the finding aid: "Running from 1963-2000, its 37-year run was one of public radio's longest-running classical music programs and was syndicated internationally and all over the United States". I'd want to see another source on that, but if you can back that statement up with the finding aid plus something else, that's the sort of info that is good for a leader.
• That's probably more than enough to do, but if you really want to push the article to the next level, I'd look for sources outside the Globe. Other newspapers, or books, or even academic journal articles? WGBH has some factual information on awards given to the show; are there details on which awards? That would also be good to include.

Really, nice job on finding the additional Globe articles! I think you have good sources to start with, and just need to pull out more info from those sources for the article. AmandaRR123 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

A Note on capitalization

Just a comment that capitalization of the show is inconsistent across sources, but WGBH uses a capital "To" whereas most of the finding aid uses lower-case "to". Some Globe articles switch between the two options! So something to think about is which we recommend for this particular article. I'm leaning towards the lowercase "to", because that's closer to Wikipedia sentence case? AmandaRR123 (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Note To You. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140616234744/http://openvault.wgbh.org/pdf/WGBHMLAAssessment.pdf to http://openvault.wgbh.org/pdf/WGBHMLAAssessment.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)