Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Operation Flavius/archive1

Comments from Cirt

Comments from Cirt moved to talk page, by Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all these numbered comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. I made some minor formatting adjustments to the References sect. Should be Footnotes, then Notes, then References. Prior format seemed a bit arbitrary. I reformatted it, per WP:LAYOUT.
3. The first note in Footnotes sect is uncited. Please add an inline cite at the end of this note.
4. {{Commons category}} belongs in the External links sect, not the References sect. Please add a few more links to the External links sect.
5. Might help to add a See also sect, with a few links to other related articles, and some relevant portals.
6. Article could do with some entries in a new Further reading sect, to suggest reading sources for the reader for further info on the topic.
7. Suggest converting {{Campaignbox Northern Ireland Troubles}} from a top template to a navbox footer template. It's a bit obtrusive at the moment.
8. Same for {{History of Gibraltar}}, suggest converting this to footer navbox template, so as not to be obtrusive in main article body text.
9. A few short paragraphs and one-sentence-long paragraphs in the article. Might want to consider merging these elsewhere into other paragraphs.
10. Long-term impact sect mixes both academic analysis and reflection from secondary sources, along with actual events impacted. I'd suggest two separate sects, one for academic analysis and analysis and commentary from secondary sources and scholars, and another for actual events impacted by the Operation Flavius, itself.
11. NOTE: Please respond, below all these numbered comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

These shouldn't be too hard to address. Feel free to let me know once you've responded to above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Thank you for your comments.
2. That's not minor, and WP:CITEVAR says to stick with the format of the main contributor unless there's a consensus to the contrary; changed back (I'm sure you and I have had this conversation before, though I can't remember where offhand).
3. I'd say this falls under citing that the sky is blue, since the fact is readily apparent from the article text, but I can dig up a reference if you really think it's necessary. Now referenced.
4. According to its documentation, it belongs in the last section the article, and the documentation discourages creating empty EL sections just to house the template.
5. There are quite a lot of links already in the article, and the two navboxes for Troubles- and Gibraltar-related topics contain many more; I'm open to suggestions, but I can't think what I would put in a see also section that isn't already linked.
6. Similarly, while I'm open to the suggestion that are sources I've overlooked, the article currently cites 16 books; I think they cover everything you could want to know about the subject, and plenty of background, so I can' think what would go in a further reading section that isn't already include.
7. Although I didn't put it there, I don't think it's problematic where it is as it provides links to background reading; it's not 'my' template, so discussion of its format is better-suited to its talk page than an FAC of an article that includes it.
8. Ditto.
9. Are you sure this isn't just the effect of the blockquote markup? I only see one single-line paragraph (in the inquest section), which I think is necessary as it introduces the subsection following it.
10. You have a point there. I've r-ordered the paragraph so that the events and the opinions are separate; I'm not sure there's enough material to necessitate separate sections—we'd end up with two rather slim sections.
11. Thank you again for your comments.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

2. The format of 'notes', 'references', 'general', 'layout' was and is perfectly acceptable so there's no need to change it as per WP:CITEVAR.

4. Seems to boil down to a matter of aesthetics. Having it in the final section seems fine. Would the alternative template {{commonscat-inline}} be worth considering? Not sure it would make much of a difference. Nev1 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The revert is inappropriate, as it leaves General references before Specific references. The notes and page numbers in the Harvard style citation format should always be before the full bibliography of general cited texts. — Cirt (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's how I'd do it, but I'm not the one writing this article. Where is it written that it's an iron clad rule that full bibliographic details come after Harvard style referencing? Nev1 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) "Inappropriate" and "always" are strong terms, Cirt. This is not the only article that uses this style (granted, the FAs that use it are all mine I think, but that's five FACs where it hasn't been a problem) and CITEVAR is quite unequivocal: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with spelling differences, unless there is consensus to change, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article." (emphasis original) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry your feelings are hurt that I changed your article against your wishes without consulting you first. I won't do it again. But now can we have a discussion about this version? I've never seen an academic paper or WP:FA before with notes after general references like this. — Cirt (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:, I see you really are quite personally attached to this "General" and then "Specific" format style of the References sect. I'm just curious as to why you're so resistant as to using the standard Harvard citation order of Footnotes, then Notes, then References? Is it just because you've always done it that way before and you're resistant to change? Where did you first see this model that you then modeled it after, yourself? — Cirt (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I should note, I'd love an explanation, and whether or not my comments are responded to, to my personal satisfaction, if there are explanations given in good faith, I'll do my best to go back over the article and all above comments, and see whether I can Support. No hard feelings or anything like that! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I saw it used on another article at some point, but I've been using this format for a few years now so I can't remember where I first saw it (I'm not clever enough or eccentric enough to make up my own format out of thin air). It's not that I'm especially attached to this format (I use it for articles that I write, but I wouldn't force it on another article), it's just that on the rare occasion it's mentioned, the only reason to change it seems to be to fit somebody else's preference. Since we don't have a set "house style", I don't really see why one person's preference trumps another's—it's just another (granted, apparently rather unorthodox) method of displaying the same information. Pardon me if this sounds rude, but in my reviewing, I'm much more interested in the sources themselves than I am in the way they're presented, so long as all the bibliographic information is there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense, thank you for the helpful explanation! — Cirt (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I'm now more than satisfied with the responses by HJ Mitchell. I'm most thankful for the polite and professional demeanor in which HJ Mitchell has conducted himself during his replies to me, it's most appreciated!!! Good luck with the rest of the FAC, — Cirt (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)