Talk:Bomis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Bomis has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on February 24, 2014. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Completion of Guild of Copy Editors pass[edit]

This article had a copy edit through the Guild of Copy Editors process.

Result here by Miniapolis.

My thanks for this copy edit by Miniapolis, the article looks much better for it!

Much appreciated,

Cirt (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by reference tagging[edit]

I checked but failed to find any talk page discussion justifying this drive-by reference tagging -- so I removed those drive-by tags.

Cheers,

Cirt (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Cite re-formatting[edit]

Did some cite re-formatting, modeled after WP:FAs including The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.

Will try to break those cites into more specific ones with smaller page ranges and/or individual pages.

However I don't (at the moment) have immediate access to all the sources I once had when successfully bringing this article to WP:GA quality as I did in the past.

Fortunately I made sure throughout the Quality improvement project, that multiple references back up most facts and most sentences.

Cirt (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to link together the short citation with the long citation see Template:Harvard citation/doc#Wikilink to citation does not work. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, QuackGuru, but still thinking over whether or not to link them all and make them bluelinks, because as you point out there in that link there are historically lots of problems with those links not working correctly. — Cirt (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If it were only a few references it would be easy. There are way too many sources to turn blue. See Bomis#Notes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, good point, I'll give it some more thought. — Cirt (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Update: In process now of moving cites and also and perhaps more importantly checking accessibility of hyperlinks and archiving where necessary. Will update further with progress. — Cirt (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I adjusted one reference. I think the bluelinks format is an improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, it'll be a slow and steady process converting them, however. — Cirt (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Update: All cites now moved to Notes/References sect formatting. No bluelinks between the two sects changes done yet. All references in article checked for either accessible hyperlinks or if not available online then noted where to access them through the via field in the citation. — Cirt (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Checklinks[edit]

Note to self: Go through status of links at Checklinks. — Cirt (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Where possible all relevant links are active and/or have been archived if archives are currently available. Will have to remember to do this as well for any additional hyperlinks within other sources. — Cirt (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Using publisher field to note archive database[edit]

I'm using the publisher field in the citations to note the archival database used to access the article.

In most cases this is LexisNexis, it's possible if not there it was NewsBank.

Hopefully in the future people with bots and/or scripts won't come through and remove the publisher field, because that is very valuable and useful info namely the archive database name of which to access the article(s).

Placing here on the talk page in the hope that others will see this in the future in the event that information might (but hopefully not) get removed from those citation fields.

Cirt (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I placed a query at Template_talk:Citation#Where_to_put_archive_database_used_to_access_article.3F, hopefully we can get some clarity on this issue. — Cirt (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Their answer was to use the via field instead of the publisher field, and this is now Yes check.svg Done in this article. — Cirt (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 book The Innovators mentions exact diff link to this Wikipedia article talk page[edit]

The 2014 book The Innovators: How a Group of Inventors, Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution cites a specific diff link to this particular article talk page:

Also a positive mention on page 440:

Cirt (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Also an excerpt from the book published by The Daily Beast:

Cirt (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)