Ebola virus cases in the United States
I haven't read this article -- Ebola virus cases in the United States -- yet, but I saw an edit to it and looked at it. At this moment it's the second-to-last edit, and there's a long edit summary saying that the editor had made the same edit before. I went to the article to look at it. It doesn't sound right to me. First of all, if the adjective clause is used, it needs to be preceded by a comma. But besides that, it doesn't sound right. I'm not sure "which includes" is right, either. I think a participial phrase, "...., including...." would be better. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the added link. I wondered again why you didn't just link the section heading. Perhaps you think its ugly. Anyway, now for the article... Rothorpe (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's since been pluralised, but I agree 'including' would be better. Rothorpe (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa - Responses
I asked Gandydancer a question on his/her talk page. I wonder if you would weigh in. It's whether to move the article "a" to within the quotation marks without checking the original text (or speech). It's at User talk:Gandydancer#Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa - Responses. Thanks.
- Whether there was an adjective there or not doesn't matter. I don't think you got the point I was making. Did you read (a) and (b) in my initial comment? The article is not present inside the quotation marks in the direct source (BBC article) but may have been inside the quotation marks on the source from which the BBC article was taken. I just think it looks better to have the article ("a") included with the phrase inside the quotation marks, but I hesitated to move it unless the original source is found and the article ("a") is seen to have been part of the original phrase. It's not exactly a "correction", as in the examples Gandydancer gave. I just wondered whether it was taking too much of a chance to move the article ("a") inside the quotation marks without seeing the original source (or perhaps someone could find the original source and look at it), or whether it was better just to leave it as is. CorinneSD (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Robin Maugham, 2nd Viscount Maugham
If you have time, would you review the latest edits to Robin Maugham, 2nd Viscount Maugham? Some seem a bit odd, but I can't decide. I thought you'd be a better judge. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- WL's additions seem OK, but the edits by the IP are more of a mixed bag. Rothorpe (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I made a few edits. Did you see my comment at the Robin Maugham section in your Archive 19 User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 20#Chilham? CorinneSD (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I just started to read the article on the Sky, and I made a few small edits, but I am puzzling over the following sentence in the first paragraph of the lead:
- "Usually, the term sky is used from the point of view of the Earth's surface, but the exact meaning of the term can vary."
It seems to me that the two halves of this sentence (even taking into account the example that follows this sentence) are not specifically contrasted to each other. They're about two different things. I also don't like the wording of the first part of the sentence. I prefer something like this:
- The concept of the sky is from the point of view of the earth's surface.
- The sky is from the point of view of the earth's surface.
To me, it's not the "term sky" that is from the point of view of the earth's surface, it's the sky itself, or the human conception of the sky.
Do you have any thoughts about these sentences (including the subsequent sentence)?
Also, if you look at the second paragraph, it seems to alternate between the daytime and the nighttime. Do you think that is necessary? Would the paragraph read better if the information about the daytime was all together and the information about the nightime followed? CorinneSD (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- I like the alternation, and the sequence with its contrasts, blue, dark, stars, sun, clouds, moon, planets. I'm still trying to think of an improvement to the sentence in the 1st paragraph. Rothorpe (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's a bit weaselwordy. Scrap it altogether? 'The exact meaning...' Rothorpe (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think saying "the sky" or "the term sky" is used from the point of view of the earth's surface is kind of obvious. Words are human constructions, so of course it's from the point of view of the earth's surface. The only reason I can think of for saying that in the article would be to contrast it with another term for the same thing from another vantage point. Do you see anything like that? (I haven't read the rest of the article yet, but if there is another such term, it should be given right there. I don't think "atmosphere" qualifies", do you?) CorinneSD (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of the latest edit to Tyre, Lebanon? The editor seems not to like a plural predicate. Do you prefer the way it was, or do you want to go along with this editor's preference? If the verb ("is") is to stay, the comma is not needed. CorinneSD (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! Can you please take a look at something in Shel Silverstein? It's in the middle of the quote by Otto Penzler in Shel Silverstein#Children's books. I'll let you find it and see if you have any solution for fixing it. CorinneSD (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Where are you? I read most of the article on Shetland and made a few edits to improve wording and sentence flow. I left one question about an article ("the") that I added at User talk:Ben MacDui#Shetland. I have another question for you. It's the last one of my edits. I didn't particularly like "..., although unusually..." there, so I re-worded the sentence. I want to know if you like my version or if you like it the way it was before I changed it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)