Christine Hannon
Christine Hannon, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Christine Hannon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
Jack Teich kidnapping edit
Hello Christine, ok, let's work on that article. I see you've doubled up on it as there's this one and that one. Which one is the one you'd like to go forward with? I can delete the other one. First things first; when a new article gets submitted, the first thing a reviewer would look for is notability or WP:GNG. There's no trouble about that; you've demonstrated that well. So let's look at content, structure, and the rules laid out in the Manual of Style.
Lead first. It's supposed to summarise the main points of the article. You've got a mixture of that summary and biographical details of Teich. I suggest that you have a separate paragraph in the article that gives Teich's background and that's where you can mention his birth date; it's not relevant for the lead. Rewrite the lead accordingly; it may start like this: "The 1974 kidnapping of Jack Teich in Kings Point, New York, resulted in the largest ransom being paid in the United States up to that point." Or some such. The first sentence should state what it's all about. In subsequent lead sentence, you can summarise lesser details.
Other issues. Don't have any external links in the prose section but convert them to references. Have a look at MOS:NUMERAL and MOS:SURNAME. Also look at MOS:UNDERLINK. Once done, please post here and I'll have another look. Any questions, please ask. Schwede66 18:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! Let's start with the "this one" and "that one." I started playing in the sandbox, then saw there was a way to have drafts, but couldn't figure it out. Then one version wasn't behaving as though it saved. And 4 hours later I have two versions.
- Objective: Understand how to create drafts independent of the sandbox, allowing the sandbox to be a lab.
- Thanks for the editorial review! I will look at the MOS: links and revise accordingly. In addition to your feedback, I get an error message about multiple uses of the same referenced article. Am planning to look at the code behind other articles. It's not citing different parts of the same article causing the issue, is it? Christine Hannon (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'll have a look why that multiple use of same ref comes up. But first you need to tell whether to look at "this" or "that" :) And by the way, you indent talk page comments so that you can see where the next editor's post starts. Schwede66 04:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Attempting to indent here. (Christine of the future previewed. Success!) RE: this one/that one, I'll keep this one to edit. Is that the correct way to create drafts? Christine Hannon (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello master-indenter. That's an ok way to go about creating drafts. It's not the preferred way but given that I'm looking after you (and this article) it's just fine. Schwede66 09:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- It (general "it" of Wikipedia) seems like the sandbox should be as a laboratory, and there's a different method to create a draft. Somehow attempting to follow the directions led to creating two versions in my sandbox. So aggravating. Is it time to click the submit button? How many reviewers will be involved? And, paying my dues, how do I find pages that need to be edited? Is there an MOS code for that? Many thanks! Christine Hannon (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Don't distract yourself with the article's location; it's not important. Once you've worked through the list of issues that I've given you above and all is good, I will publish it. It doesn't need to go through any other reviews than that. Here's the to do list again: "Don't have any external links in the prose section but convert them to references. Have a look at MOS:NUMERAL and MOS:SURNAME. Also look at MOS:UNDERLINK." If any of those items raise any questions please ask. With regards to the reference error, that's caused by the 7 January 1995 The New York Times article which you have referenced twice. WP:REFNAME explains how that's fixed. I guess you use the visual editor and those instructions may make little sense in that case. If you can't get your head around it quickly I can do that edit for you and show you how it's fixed. Schwede66 18:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, that was going well until it wasn't. I made the references appear in the middle of the article. But, the multiple listing under footnote 4 correct! Source editing wasn't terrifying. So, one step forward... I'll look for a short article and see what to mimic, after a nap. Christine Hannon (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Christine of 10 minutes later might have resolved the problem. Please let me know if I've completed the list successfully. This has been more enjoyable that I expected. Thank you for your supportive words. Christine Hannon (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, that was going well until it wasn't. I made the references appear in the middle of the article. But, the multiple listing under footnote 4 correct! Source editing wasn't terrifying. So, one step forward... I'll look for a short article and see what to mimic, after a nap. Christine Hannon (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Don't distract yourself with the article's location; it's not important. Once you've worked through the list of issues that I've given you above and all is good, I will publish it. It doesn't need to go through any other reviews than that. Here's the to do list again: "Don't have any external links in the prose section but convert them to references. Have a look at MOS:NUMERAL and MOS:SURNAME. Also look at MOS:UNDERLINK." If any of those items raise any questions please ask. With regards to the reference error, that's caused by the 7 January 1995 The New York Times article which you have referenced twice. WP:REFNAME explains how that's fixed. I guess you use the visual editor and those instructions may make little sense in that case. If you can't get your head around it quickly I can do that edit for you and show you how it's fixed. Schwede66 18:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- It (general "it" of Wikipedia) seems like the sandbox should be as a laboratory, and there's a different method to create a draft. Somehow attempting to follow the directions led to creating two versions in my sandbox. So aggravating. Is it time to click the submit button? How many reviewers will be involved? And, paying my dues, how do I find pages that need to be edited? Is there an MOS code for that? Many thanks! Christine Hannon (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello master-indenter. That's an ok way to go about creating drafts. It's not the preferred way but given that I'm looking after you (and this article) it's just fine. Schwede66 09:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Attempting to indent here. (Christine of the future previewed. Success!) RE: this one/that one, I'll keep this one to edit. Is that the correct way to create drafts? Christine Hannon (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'll have a look why that multiple use of same ref comes up. But first you need to tell whether to look at "this" or "that" :) And by the way, you indent talk page comments so that you can see where the next editor's post starts. Schwede66 04:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Woke up early today, couldn't go back to sleep so started editing this on my cellphone. Tidied it up and published it. Hope that's ok with you. Noticed one referencing issue that I then forgot about; will tidy that now. Schwede66 09:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good morning from New York (State, not city)! What great news! (I’m also looking at my phone, so please pardon typos and formatting issues here.) I can’t thank you enough for your mentorship! If you wouldn’t mind directing me to a reference for the proper draft creation process? Our convo started with “this one and that one.” And I’m not convinced either location was correct. Looking forward to making further contributions. Christine Hannon (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you use the Wikipedia:Article Wizard, it should automatically choose the draft name space. That’s the preferred location for new articles by new users. But there’s nothing wrong with using your own user space if you know what you are doing or if someone keeps an eye on things. Have you seen these instructions? Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, creating, and maintaining articles/Creating a new article Schwede66 17:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Haha! I found that reference (Missing Manual) after starting the first version. A reflection on my ability to follow directions = Created the second wrong way after reading those directions. Go me. I'll shake it off and start fresh next week. Do you mind if I contact you again if I get stuck in the labyrinth? Christine Hannon (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I’ll hang around for as long as you want me to. Schwede66 02:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Many thanks! I'll pay the favor forward when skills improve! Christine Hannon (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I’ll hang around for as long as you want me to. Schwede66 02:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Haha! I found that reference (Missing Manual) after starting the first version. A reflection on my ability to follow directions = Created the second wrong way after reading those directions. Go me. I'll shake it off and start fresh next week. Do you mind if I contact you again if I get stuck in the labyrinth? Christine Hannon (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you use the Wikipedia:Article Wizard, it should automatically choose the draft name space. That’s the preferred location for new articles by new users. But there’s nothing wrong with using your own user space if you know what you are doing or if someone keeps an eye on things. Have you seen these instructions? Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, creating, and maintaining articles/Creating a new article Schwede66 17:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good morning from New York (State, not city)! What great news! (I’m also looking at my phone, so please pardon typos and formatting issues here.) I can’t thank you enough for your mentorship! If you wouldn’t mind directing me to a reference for the proper draft creation process? Our convo started with “this one and that one.” And I’m not convinced either location was correct. Looking forward to making further contributions. Christine Hannon (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)