Wikipedia

Talk:New Waveland Cafe and Clinic/GA1

< Talk:New Waveland Cafe and Clinic
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Basket of Puppies in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago73 comments2 people in discussion

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Initial review

edit

Hi there Basket of Puppies, good job on the article. My comments follow-- the list seems pretty long, but most of the items are easily remedied. I think you've got a "good article" coming. :)

  • There should be no space between the period and the references/footnote numbers, nor a space between each reference. You can fix this by putting the reference <ref> tags on the same line as the previous content, don't move down to the next line.
    • Got it. I did that as it made for putting in the refs a bit easier, tho I have gone ahead and merged them on the same lines. I hope I didn't miss any! Basket of Puppies 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
      • Yes, putting them all on one line does make it harder to read the code, but it's nicer when reading the article. If you're amenable to the idea, you can put each parameter for the {{cite news}} template on each line. For example, the first reference in the article could look like this: (This is my personal preference, you're under no obligation to do it like this)
<ref name="MSNBC1">{{cite news
 | title = The un-organization - Rising from Ruin
 | url = http://risingfromruin.msnbc.com/2005/11/meals_and_dance.html
 | accessdate = 2009-04-24
 | date = 2005-11-01
 | publisher = [[MSNBC]]
 | quote = One of the great ironies in the landscape of Katrina recovery efforts is the success of the New Waveland Café}}</ref>
That reference doesn't use the first= and last= parameters, since that article doesn't list an author. The quote= parameter is for adding a short quote from the article, which then helps people in the future, if the link goes dead-- they will be able to search for the article easier. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Note - If you like this format that I'm suggesting, I'll offer to reformat all the citations in the article, since I have a script that can help me do it in short order. Let me know. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oh the script sounds perfect! I am very agreeable to the format chance. Basket of Puppies 20:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I will get to it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • You switch back and forth between "Cafe and Clinic" and "Cafe & Clinic". I'd prefer consistency.
    • Makes sense! I believe I straightened this out by changing all references to "Cafe & Clinic". Basket of Puppies
      • Sorry to come back to this again, but I was just reading the manual of style (Wikipedia:MOS#Article titles), and it says the word "and" should be used instead of the character "&" in article titles. So this means the article should be moved to New Waveland Cafe and Clinic. Then, for consistency, all references to this inside the article should be changed to "and" as well. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
        • Oops! I am fine with this change. Want to do it or should I? Basket of Puppies 20:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
          • After reading the sources more in-depth, I think the title needs to be changed to New Waveland Cafe. This is because we can only have information that comes directly from the sources. (Otherwise it's called original research, and we can't have that.) In the sources, the most common name was "New Waveland Café", the second most common was "New Waveland Cafe", and a third was also given "Waveland Village Cafe". I think we should go with the most common one, per WP:MOS#Article titles. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
            • I have to admit I am a bit partial to keeping it as New Waveland Cafe and Clinic. They were two halves to a hole. Some of the sources do indeed refer to the Clinic and others refer to the Cafe. As far as the Village source I think that can be passed-over. Basket of Puppies 21:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
              • Yes, I hear you. I'm sure you were right there on the front lines, and that's how you and others referred to it. But the only thing is for Wikipedia, we have to follow the policies and guidelines. Every bit of material we add to an article must be sourced to reliable sources. It doesn't matter that I know that water is wet, if I want to add that statement to an article I have to cite a reliable source. It's the same with the name of this article. We can't go by what you know to be true, we must follow the policy of citing reliable sources. If the reliable sources referred to the whole installation as the "New Waveland Cafe" and later went on to describe that it was a soup kitchen, medical clinic etc, then that is how we have to treat the subject here as well. We can't give the article a title "New Waveland Cafe and Clinic" unless other reliable sources first gave it that name verbatim. That is why I had changed the lead sentence to call the whole deal the "New Waveland Cafe", and then went on to describe that it was really more than a cafe. Does my explanation make sense? I'm not making this stuff up, nor am I trying to coerce you. It's just what Wikipedia policy says. See WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V. What do you think? Do you think you can live with that? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
              • Oh, one other thing, were there any sources that referred to the "New Waveland Clinic" verbatim?, or was it only "New Waveland Cafe" and then they also discussed the "medical clinic"? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
                • Got it. I have no problem with how you describe it now. As far as specific references to the 'New Waveland Clinic' there are several sources which do, such as this letter in reason magazine and this article from the Knight Rider/Tribune News Service. I hope at least the second one is acceptable. I realize the first might not be, as it is a letter. Basket of Puppies 00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
                  • I've changed the lead sentence to read "The New Waveland Café and New Waveland Clinic together formed a disaster response center...", and I've changed the article title to "New Waveland Cafe and Clinic". Since we have reliable sources for both names-- "New Waveland Cafe" and "New Waveland Clinic"-- then we can use both of them. For the title of the article, we can leave it like you originally had it (with the change from "&" to "and"). I think this is the best route to take per this policy (Wikipedia:TITLE#Use_of_.22and.22) of combining two closely related topics into one article, and joining them with "and" for the title. So in my opinion, this issue is resolved. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • First you treat it as one entity, "New Waveland Cafe & Clinic was a disaster response center", then as two separate entities: "The Cafe and Clinic were founded". Again, consistency. Since there is a section for each one later in the article, they should probably be treated as two separate entities. Perhaps the opening sentence could be changed to "New Waveland Cafe and Clinic were a cafe and clinic that together formed a disaster response center...".
  • I would suggest expanding the "Impact of Katrina on Waveland and Hancock County" section a bit so the subsequent header is not indented to the right due to the picture.

I hope you don't think I've been too hard on the article (or on you). You've got a good start, and the things I've mentioned shouldn't be to hard to carry out. If you have any questions or want to reply to the individual items, do so under the specific item (using proper indentation) so we can keep things in order. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

No hard feelings! I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and thorough review! I shall begin to work on all you indicated right away. Smiles! Basket of Puppies 17:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good, have fun! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Alrighty! I've made the edits you suggested (will expand the Impact section and do the cites very soon). What are your current thoughts? Basket of Puppies 18:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

More things

edit


Taking off

edit

I am going on a short trip and will be back in about a day. Just wanted to let you know as we seemed to be working pretty seriously all day. Thanks for all your help! I think the article is really shaping up! Basket of Puppies 21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sure, no problem, have a good trip! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ok I am back! It was such a beautiful day here in New England and I spent all day in the park and tossing the frisbee. That said I am back and ready to get back to serious work on the topic. Basket of Puppies 00:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wrapping things up

edit

I've tweaked a few more things in the article, and I think it's getting pretty good. We just need to proofread it one last time, checking for spelling/grammar/punctuation errors, as well as to try to improve the prose as much as possible, so it sounds as much like a professional encyclopedia article as it can. If any of the sections can be expanded some more that is fine too. So I'll read through the whole thing once more with an eye to improve the writing, and I'd like it if you could too. So to sum things up, let's make sure the writing is as brilliant as possible, and let's see if there is anything that can be expanded. After that, I'll have no problem giving my approval for "good article" status. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply


  • One other thing. A "good article" must be factually accurate and verifiable. Do you have any sources for the information you added in the Clinic section? Is some of that info in any of the references currently cited in the article? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • In regards to the MASH and battlefield references I believe the MASH in MS article would be the best fit: "The facilities are pretty incredible," she said. "It's set up like a M.A.S.H. tent."MASH in MS It does a good job of describing the specialities of the physicians who were volunteering (that week it was a pediatrician and a surgeon). Regarding the hospital, the Heart Hospital in Lacombe was the one patients were sent to. Northshore was occasionally used. As far as the equipment and such, I believe Professor LeBaron in the video (which is linked) makes reference to the lack of advanced equipment (such as no X-Ray or labs), tho I'll rewatch it to make sure. Basket of Puppies 04:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
      • The MASH in MS article includes the info of the two hospitals people could travel to, "The local hospital, Hancock County Medical Center, was knocked unconscious during Katrina. Otherwise, patients must travel 42 miles to Slidell, La., or 35 miles to Gulfport, Miss." and how the local hospital in the country had been destroyed. Basket of Puppies 04:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Done Ok, I think we've wrapped this up for now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • LinguistAtLarge, it has been an utter pleasure and honor to work with you on this article. I cannot thank you enough for your tons of amazing and excellent editing, proofing, expansion, sourcing, etc. You are an asset to Wikipedia. Basket of Puppies 02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Waveland_Cafe_and_Clinic/GA1&oldid=1086322439"