Talk:David Stephenson (architect)

Characterization

Stephenson's style has been characterised{{by whom?|date=May 2019}} as "delicate Neo-classicism".<ref name="dobson"/>

By Faulkner and Greg (the authors of the book on Dobson), perhaps? (Paging Chris Warburton Brown.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. Or maybe someone else said it and was quoted in the book? It is fine to use an inline ref to support a plain claim, but a quoted claim needs the name of the speaking source inline. I am still wondering who said it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Chris Warburton Brown (who I suppose has access to the cited book). -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I have checked online about referencing works cited in other works, using Harvard. If it is from a source quoted in another source the correct format would be (Hoary cited in Warburton Brown 2019, p67). The correct form for all quotes is to put the source immediately after the quoted words. Ironically, this means the quote we're discussing is correctly referenced but the one in the previous para is not! I will correct it. Thank you both very much for your input and edits which have greatly improved the page. I'll add a bit more content later today. Chris Warburton Brown (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I had a look at WP:MOS, which says under attribution "The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote. The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion...". It is an opinion, so I believe it still needs a name in the sentence.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. My view is that the original phrasing of this sentence met both the standard Harvard referencing format and the requirements of Wikipedia as quoted by you above. However, to to end this back and forward discussion, I will rewrite the sentence to make it clearer. Let me know if you are happy with the outcome. Chris Warburton Brown (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

We now have:

Stephenson's style has been characterised by Faulkner and Greg as "delicate Neo-classicism".

This is informative . . . but at this point the reader won't know who Faulkner and Greg are (or what their work is). (In order to find out, they have to click on the reference; and once they've read the reference, the "by Faulkner and Greg" in the text becomes superfluous.) As long as it's F&G who are so describing the work, I think the names are an unnecessary encumbrance, and that it would better be simply:

Stephenson's style has been characterised as "delicate Neo-classicism".

This is an informative little article on a worthwhile architect (of whom I unfortunately know nothing). A lot of it is sourced to the relevant volume of The Buildings of England. Yes, it would indeed be better if each reference to that book came with the relevant page number; but really, it's not so hard for a reader to find their way within one of these books to a specific building of interest. Rather than splattering this article with "^{[page needed]}", one might point out to the creator on this talk page (i) that page numbers would be desirable and (ii) that a handy way of inserting them without a tedious proliferation of trivially differing references would be via the existing single reference together with Template:rp. (To see this combination in action, consider Gianni Berengo Gardin bibliography.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary. I'll look at that ref template and article and make changes as you suggest, if I can work it out! There's been loads of good learning for me here for future articles.

I am baffled by the discussion of 'Stephenson's style...' as you have now suggested this sentence reverts to its original form! If you look back through this thread you'Ll see I was told to correct it to make the source more obvious. I'll duck out of this discussion now, it's only one sentence. 

Chris Warburton Brown (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)