Talk:Agrimonia gryposepala

Lead

As per WP:MOS lead section:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points. ... Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.

Or in other words summarize the article in the but don't cite twice. -- Esemono (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And it continues: "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus," but never mind. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Which means if there is a fact in the lead ONLY it should be cited but there are no independent facts in the lead. anyway the article is 1500 characters for DYK -- Esemono (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I did wonder if some of the redundancy was padding to get over the DYK threshold. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

cits

While google links are vastly superior Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to promote any website no matter how convenient. As for the link style on encyclopedic entries, like plant descriptions, an academic citation system like MLA should be used no? -- Esemono (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would you possibly want to delete the GoogleBooks links to the actual pages being cited? Why force readers to walk down to the library (if they even have that option)?

One of the purposes of a Wikipedia article is to make it easier for the reader to do follow-up research. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The DYK team also prefers hyperlinks to cited pages, since it makes the citations checkable. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of this article, where only one species is being discussed, the books as a whole are not being referred to, simply specific short sections, and it's more convenient to place a whole citation in the numbered notes. Only if several different parts of a book are being referred to does it make sense to have notes like "Smith, p 12" and "Smith, p 439" with the citation of Smith's book elsewhere. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I just think Wikipedia should be academic. The MLA system and other encyclopedic citation systems are used ALL the time in academic sources there is no exception if a cit is used once. If you've never used academic cites before perhaps for more information perhaps you should take a look at the The MLA Style Manual or The Chicago Manual of Style. Wikipedia should not support commercial sites like google. This is why Wikipedia links to the ISBN number instead of using direct links to Amazon and uses the MapHack instead of using direct links to GoogleMaps. The DYK team likes links using google books on the DYK suggestion page it does not support using commercial sites that drive traffic to a for profit site. Also googlebook links aren't stable as they change every few weeks. But the article is now under 1500 anyway.-- Esemono (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Wikipedia should be academic, but I can assure you from personal experience that the academic world uses a wide range of different citation styles. WP:CITE suggests:

The Sun is pretty big,<ref>Miller, E: ''The Sun'', page 23. Academic Press, 2005.</ref>
but the Moon is not so big.<ref>Brown, R: "Size of the Moon", ''Scientific American'', 51(78):46</ref>
The Sun is also quite hot.<ref>Miller, E: ''The Sun'', page 34. Academic Press, 2005.</ref>
==Notes==
<references/>

while WP:CITESHORT suggests the style you were advocating as an option for longer articles and to "allow the editor to cite many different pages of the same source without having to copy the entire citation" (which doesn't apply here).

There is no Wikipedia policy against using GoogleBooks, and there is a strong preference to linking to online versions of books and articles if they are available. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As to length, I thought the article was still over 1500. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agrimonia gryposepala. 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/20110928012933/http://wisplants.uwsp.edu/scripts/detail.asp?SpCode=AGRGRY to http://wisplants.uwsp.edu/scripts/detail.asp?SpCode=AGRGRY

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) 05:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)