User talk:Afernand74/Archives/2020/April
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Rosiestep in topic May 2020 at Women in Red
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Seven years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Citation page
Hello, thanks for adding this citation. Is it possible to add the page number as well? I'm thinking about taking it to a GA status some time, and usually a more precise citation is preferred. I can't check it myself because it seems hard to get access to this book. HaEr48 (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- @HaEr48: I was interested in adding the reference to the original work but couldn't locate the book. Sorry for that. After doing some extra research, I found the website of the author and a vreference/link to a more recent article of the author. I added it to the article for your consideration. I also added the ref of the book published by N&K for traceability purposes. Thanks for your work on this important article.--Afernand74 (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. The problem is that the online article is self-published, which is discouraged due to WP:SELFPUB. For a normal article it would be fine given the author's credential, but because I have GA in mind I think we should aim for a higher standard. The passage you added reference to is already referenced to a secondary source. Probably the Abdali article and N&K book can go to the further reading section, what do you think. HaEr48 (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- @HaEr48: I agree that its preferable to avoid self-published papers. Putting the article in the "further reading" section could a solution but considering that Bilici (see Bilici 2012 p. 55, Wired and many other scholars ([1]) are all linking to the same PDF (hosted on patriot.net), it should be possible to claim an exception to SELFPUB. Finally, I think the Abdali's article mentionned on the wikipage is the 1997 paper and not the 1978 book. I modified the article to make it clear it is a self-published resource.
- I also would personally leave the N&K book in the "Reference" section considering that the article says explicitly that N&K "published a book" and that readers should be able to identify the book the article is talking about (not available on Worldcat apparently).
- What do you think?--Afernand74 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. I would still add them to the further reading section, and then in-text add some {{efn}} footnotes saying, "see Abdali 1977" or something like that. That would still give readers pointers to the original work, without appearing that we're citing self-published work. It'll be a while before I nominate for GA (still waiting for WP:GOCER to clean up my grammar), once it's time I'll think of a way of cleaning up the referencing. HaEr48 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. The problem is that the online article is self-published, which is discouraged due to WP:SELFPUB. For a normal article it would be fine given the author's credential, but because I have GA in mind I think we should aim for a higher standard. The passage you added reference to is already referenced to a secondary source. Probably the Abdali article and N&K book can go to the further reading section, what do you think. HaEr48 (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
May 2020 at Women in Red
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging