Talk:Luna Park, Scranton
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
| It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Index
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Working together edit
I think it would be better to communicate here, rather than all this working and undoing.
If the article is completely incorrect, then we should all want to correct it.
At the same time, Wikipedia uses references to decide if something is correct. The internet makes it hard to know who anybody really is, so it doesn't matter if some editor says something is correct. It matters if the reference says it's correct. Verifiability, not truth. Presumably the source is Scranton newspaper articles. When the footnotes appear, we can decide whose references are more convincing. Wikipedia:Citing sources may be helpful. Art LaPella (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Art LaPella. I reverted here [1], because it looked to be going down the same road as previously--removing sourced content, adding insufficiently sourced, overly detailed, and containing personal conclusions, i.e., WP:ORIGINAL research. Moreover, the tone was anecdotal, that of a personal essay. As noted above, not every fact is worth inclusion here just because it's been published in a newspaper, and a year-by-year summation of mostly non notable events--let alone a monthly or weekly such distillation--is most likely not appropriate for an encylopedic entry. 2601:188:1:AEA0:587E:8905:7942:88F3 (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining. I'll make sure that Daves1 reads it. Art LaPella (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Invitation for comment - update in Daves1/sandbox edit
I've rewritten the update for this article in what I believe proper non-anecdotal form, properly cited, and fitted for modest length. The article corrects the historical deficiencies of the live posting. Please reference Daves1/sandbox if you would like to comment. Thank you. Dave SienkiewiczDaves1 (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Please copy that update into Daves1/sandbox (it isn't there) or tell us where we can find it. Art LaPella (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)- Found it. It's at User:Daves1/sandbox.
- As a copyeditor, there's a lot I could do, but we'll see if the article survives this time.
- For one thing, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style (although there's a much better consensus for the prestige of having a style manual than for using it.) Specifically, I could apply the lower-case heading and reference after period guidelines, and our layout guideline specifies a lead section before the table of contents that summarizes the article. I've seen the historical present tense in some other Wikipedia articles, but I'm not sure that's OK, especially when mixed so freely with the past tense. Except for the beginning, the article is missing a lot of "the"s and "a"s. There was a comma splice, and the spelling of Wiktionary:principle was confused with Wiktionary:principal a couple times. Etc.
- But I fix things like that all the time. Just give me a version that stops changing. Art LaPella (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)