Jump to content

User talk:Brancoady/Caroline Haythornthwaite: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by Marc1070 - "→‎engagement with other groups: new section"
Mndunne (talk | contribs)
Line 18: Line 18:
:There's no indication in this article draft that she's American; that should be included. Regarding language, see [[WP:TIES]]. Which country does she have strongest ties to? --[[User:Geniac|Geniac]] ([[User talk:Geniac|talk]]) 03:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
:There's no indication in this article draft that she's American; that should be included. Regarding language, see [[WP:TIES]]. Which country does she have strongest ties to? --[[User:Geniac|Geniac]] ([[User talk:Geniac|talk]]) 03:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
::A minor thing here - I think she may be Canadian. Also, why should we be writing the article in US English? Wikipedia is universal, and seeing as we write in UK English, surely the article should be written in that manner? [[User:Nickjhanson|Nickjhanson]] ([[User talk:Nickjhanson|talk]]) 08:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
::A minor thing here - I think she may be Canadian. Also, why should we be writing the article in US English? Wikipedia is universal, and seeing as we write in UK English, surely the article should be written in that manner? [[User:Nickjhanson|Nickjhanson]] ([[User talk:Nickjhanson|talk]]) 08:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
::I feel as we are in the UK and creating the article it should be in UK English [[User:Mndunne|Matthew Dunne]] ([[User talk:Mndunne|talk]]) 10:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


== More Substantial References ==
== More Substantial References ==

Revision as of 10:26, 1 March 2013

Potential Improvements to the article

I think the contents list perhaps contains links that are too long in length. For example, the co-authored work could perhaps only have the title of the work in the contents list, and detail the author and co authors in the section itself. I dont think I have ever seen a contents section appear like it does on ours anywhere else on wikipedia, so I suspect this does need some work even if not quite in the way I have suggested. Thoughts?

If you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Eastwood - the sections are written more in paragraphs as opposed to sub headings for each one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancoady (talkcontribs) 23:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the content links being too long. I always find it rather off putting seeing such a large box at the top of the page. Nickjhanson (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References Required

Nick's early life section has a reference from Carolines Blog - I dont think this will be accepted as a reference directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancoady (talkcontribs) 22:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we can take this reference out, as you don't always see references attached to information such as this. Nickjhanson (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Language

Albeit a small point for discussion we should consider which language this article will be written in: US English or UK English. Given Caroline Haythornthwaite is indeed American, and are also many of the articles written by her, this will need deciding perhaps during our meeting on Friday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmhardi1 (talkcontribs) 02:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication in this article draft that she's American; that should be included. Regarding language, see WP:TIES. Which country does she have strongest ties to? --Geniac (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A minor thing here - I think she may be Canadian. Also, why should we be writing the article in US English? Wikipedia is universal, and seeing as we write in UK English, surely the article should be written in that manner? Nickjhanson (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as we are in the UK and creating the article it should be in UK English Matthew Dunne (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Substantial References

With regards my previous email where I stated a comment from the Tea House regarding the strength of our references - this of course was one persons viewpoint.

I guess we need to decided whether to remove/amend sections now, or wait and see if the article is approved before making any major changes? Nickjhanson (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

engagement with other groups

Just a thought we might consider looking at other groups pages to see if there are any links between there work and ours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc1070 (talkcontribs) 09:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]