Talk:Andrew R. Heinze

I messed up this page with my citations.

I feel bad because I messed up this page.

Before I added the new citations, the "Andrew R Heinze" page looked nice and clean. Now (because of me) the top of the page is full of flags. Until I learn what I'm doing, maybe I should just remove my citations and leave it like it was. Would that be a good idea? EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't feel bad about trying to improve the encyclopedia. I have the page on my watchlist now, so as you work on improving it, I'll do some "clean up" to try to help make sure it stays compliant with Wikipedia's policies. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much LHM. I will get this figured out (I think) because I'll keep trying. Onward and upward. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the spirit! LHM^{ask me a question} 01:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is advice I copied from AlexiusHoratius's user page. I put it here so I can refer to it. "WP:NAMEDREFS gives the general process for naming duplicate references. Also, take a look at the first section of the History of South Dakota article as well - I think I use the method there too. Let me know if you have other questions." So that was his post. I'm going to read the stuff shortly. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Astynax: is very adept at formatting citations/references. I'm pinging him so that perhaps he can assist with this. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of sourcing

Dramatists Guild of America

I noticed that a reference using Heinze's bio on the Dramatists Guild of America official website was removed as unreliable. I'm unclear as to why that was done, as the DGoA is a professional organization, and the material being sourced to it wasn't controversial--it was used to source the fact that he is, in fact, a playwright. I'm planning on reinserting that source as a reference, but wanted to open a discussion here, in case @Drmies: (who removed it), or any other editor who takes issue with it as a reliable source, wants to discuss why it should be considered unreliable. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• DGA may be a notable, professional organization, but that doesn't mean that their membership information (as published on their website) is an acceptable source for a BLP. I'm a member of the Modern Language Association, but who's to say I didn't lie on my renewal form about my salary to get a lower membership rate? And what's on that page, we don't have to guess where that information came from: it came from the member, i.e., Heinze. No, that they're notable and all that doesn't mean their membership info is acceptable for a BLP, far from it: all that information is submitted by members. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Doollee

After looking into it, I concur with User:Drmies removal of Doollee as unreliable. It seems something like IMDB, in that there's not much (if any) editorial oversight. Heinze's brief bio blurb there even has some typos in it. If anyone disagrees with this view, I'm more than willing to reconsider. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. After reading this guy's bio, it seems to me that it shouldn't be too hard to find some sources verifying basic biographical information. I mean, he doesn't seem not-notable, does he? Drmies (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  No, I think there's not really any doubt that he's notable. I'm working on cleaning up the existing references a bit, but might ping someone to format them more properly at some point. It's a nice little article for a new editor to learn on as well. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

A new "Short Play" list with citations

Hi LHM, I've just been studying (in the "history" section) the work you did on the various Andrew R. Heinze entries and citations. Thanks so much for taking the time to help me with this. I'm going to take each item... one by one... until I understand everything and get it straight. To begin with, I saw where you removed the "short play" list from the "Works" category. I believe the old list fell short because there was no indication that the plays had ever been produced. So... what I'm planning to do now is to put up a new list of the short plays with sources (indicating where they were produced somewhere). This seemed right to me. I'm hoping it will "fly" with you. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I just added the new "Short Play" list, but I forgot (on the last edit I did) to put in what the purpose of the edit had been (in the heading). The source I had put in the first time (number 54) had not been clear (which I could only determine after the page had been saved), so I put in a better one. Dang. Anyway, I think it's good now. I'm burning the midnight oil. I won't feel comfortable until those terrible flags go down on that article. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Two questions for LHM

Was I correct to start a new section with my question, or should I have done it differently? I wasn't sure. I'll understand this pretty soon, but I'm having trouble until I learn the ropes. Thanks. So this is in regard to LHM's comment on line 18 in the "edit history." Here (below) is what the history said (under "Education"). Your comment (in regard to source #2) was: This is a primary source, but is sourcing only an uncontroversial fact. I don't understand. Should I use no source? Or a better source? If better, then what? Thanks.

Heinze grew up in New Jersey. At age fourteen he won a scholarship to Blair Academy in Warren County, New Jersey, where he graduated in 1973. He subsequently won a Bodman Foundation scholarship to attend Amherst College, where he received his B.A. in 1977, graduating Magna Cum Laude. He attended graduate school at the University of California, Berkeley, receiving his M.A. in 1980 and his Ph.D. in 1987 in American "History.

And another question: Originally, at the end of the above paragraph, I put a source that was a CV which Heinze had posted on the university site where he taught. That seemed (to me) to have been a totally credible source (because it was posted on his university's site), but apparently it wasn't good after all. What source do editors use for showing that someone has the degrees they are claiming to have? Thanks. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Replies to EDBF

• Question 1 was basically "What is a primary source and is it okay to use them?" The policy-based answer to that question can be found at WP:PRIMARY.
• Question 2 is a related question. The answer is that, as long as you're sourcing his academic credentials and basic facts about him, using a university bio should be okay. Perhaps not all editors will agree with my interpretation, but that's how I see it. Now, as not all professors and academics are WP:NOTABLE, such sources can't be used to establish an academic's notability. That is where we must have coverage of the person in WP:SECONDARY sources. I hope this helps! LHM^{ask me a question} 14:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply to LHM

• Re: your first answer... Okay LHM. I see! Things are starting to make sense to me now. I read the articles you recommended, and they were very informative. Now I understand about avoiding primary sources most of the time (not always) and a lot of the other things I needed to know. I'm going to reread all of it too. Just so it will sink in. As to your second answer, I think (I hope) that I cited Heinze's schools and degrees properly. My purpose was not to establish that he was "notable" (he seemed notable based on his work), but to establish that he was not a liar about his education. (So many people are liars about their educations... and that lie gets published in articles and books). I liked the idea of getting a source from the actual college or university the person graduated from. I think colleges and universities should publish an official list of their past graduates online... going back to when the school was established. That way the goofball fakers would be "outed." By the way, if I didn't do the sources for the schools correctly, I'll just do it over again. I'm fine with doing things over. Thanks again for your help. It was most appreciated. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  It was my pleasure to help. Many of the references (not sure if they were added by you, or by others) are still bare urls (i.e. formatted as <ref>[www.website.com/nameofarticle]</ref>), which I will try to fix when I get some time. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on those references...one by one... by one. They're better this evening than they were this morning, but I need to read more about how to improve them. Just when I think I know enough to get them right, I discover new things. Keeps it interesting though. Thanks LHM .EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, EDBF! LHM^{ask me a question} 04:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed the "tone" and "additional citations" tags

@Drmies: had added these as concerns, but now I'm not seeing an issue with the "tone" of the article, and there are certainly plenty of citations now. I left the tag concerning reliability of the sources, though perhaps even that one might best be addressed by tagging which particular sources are considered unreliable, and removing the general tag from the top of the article. I also left the tag regarding duplicate refs, and will ask @Astynax: for some help on that issue. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• That's one hell of a job, LHM--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks. EDBF really seems to have potential to be a fine editor, so I'm just trying my best to steer him along the path a bit. I'm not the best at formatting references (far from it) so bringing Astynax in on that side of thing seemed more appropriate. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help on this, LHM. I'm trying to understand how to take care of the duplicate refs right now, and as soon as i understand it throughly, I'll reformat those. And as to unreliable sources, I've been going through them in an attempt to determine which ones are unreliable. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor commenting in the discussion thread below is something of an expert in formatting citations. You might want to defer to him for a bit, watch him work, and see how he does things. I really appreciate all you've done thus far to improve this article--keep it up! LHM^{ask me a question} 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

When you say, "defer to him for a bit," does that mean I should hold off working on these (for the time being) while he's checking them out? If that's what you mean, I could just follow everything and keep watching... while I keep reading up on it at the same time. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement, LHM.EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what I was recommending: once you see him start working on the citations, you can stop working on them for a short time. Keep close watch on what he's doing, ask him questions either here or at talk (he's very helpful), and then resume editing the article as you please when he's done, using the reliable sources to expand it as you feel necessary. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. That sounds great. Thank you to everyone (including Drmies) for helping me with this. Thanks to Astynax, in particular; I'll watch what you do, follow everything and read up on all of it during the process. (Thanks to LHM for asking Astynax to come onboard.) EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I asked this on another section, but I don't know if you saw it. Is there any way to see a "preview" for citations - to see them with the formatting off? I had a problem with citation #6 because I didn't understand how to use the "cite" template (so many boxes). I thought it would be okay to work on citation #6 since Astynax (as far as I understand it) is only going to look at my duplicate refs. Maybe I should just hold off on everything until Astynax takes a look. I don't want to mess with that. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think you can preview what the cite will look like in the reflist. As for Astynax, I think he will be reformatting all of the references, as they need to be in one main format. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Citation format

It has been suggested elsewhere that it might be beneficial to use one of the shortened citation formats here, and that I might be willing to help. If editors have no problem with changing the citation format, I will make an attempt in the next day or two (it can always be undone if objections arise). • Astynax ^talk 16:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• We have a very new editor that has been working quite hard to improve this article, so if you wouldn't mind explaining to him what you're doing with the citations, I think that would be perfect. He seems very eager to learn, and I think has the potential to develop into an excellent content contributor, as he's already off to a fine start. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• (Letting @EastDimeBoxFrank: know that I'm discussing him here.) LHM^{ask me a question} 17:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• I'd keep it simple. Use the proper citation templates, to prevent linkrot etc, but nothing fancy is required--it's not like we have a couple of monographs and edited collections that require a separate bibliography in addition to notes. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  I agree with this. I do think that EDBF would like to expand and "prettify" this article some more, though, so any help either of you could give him with regards to properly formatting citations would be great. I've tried to explain the difference between primary and secondary sources, and why the latter is preferred. He seems to understand that part now, but formatting references is not a strength of mine. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• {{U|EastDimeBoxFrank]], see this edit. In my editing screen I have a button for "cite", which has a few standard templates including Template:Cite news, which is the appropriate format here. It auto-formats (and partially auto-fills)--note the date format, and the automatic italics for the publication. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, Thank you for that information. I never noticed the "cite" button before. I was just "winging it." I'm going to practice with it now. (I want to be careful, though, not to get in the way of what Astynax is going to do, so I wonder if I should wait.) EastenFrank (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for that weird signature (above)... I was trying to get a signature that was easier to remember for people. Now I chose a better one (I think). DimeBoxFrank (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I tried to use the "cite" template on citation 6, and I had trouble. I don't know if it's correct now. There were quite a few boxes to fill in on "cite," and I wasn't sure which ones to use. Is there an article that explains each box and what each box means? Thanks. It could be that I should have been waiting for Astynax before I did this, but I was anxious to implement Drmies' suggestion. Also, in general, there is no way to see how a citation is going to look before I "save" it (since "preview" does not get rid of the formatting when a person is doing citations). Is there any way to "preview" for citations - to see them with the formatting off? DimeBoxFrank (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  I don't have experience with that template, so @Astynax: will have to help you with that. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm done for now!

I put this message on my user page, but I'm putting again here:

• I'm not going to do more editing on this article now (and I'll wait for Astynax). Regarding the changes I made last night: I was awake and could see that nobody was working on the citations, so I tried to clean it up for Astynax... I got rid of some dead links, reformatted some sources into a less casual form, and I got rid of some "bad" sources and replaced them with "good" ones (I think). I have a better idea now of what is a good source and what is a bad (or not-so-good) one. I didn't want Astynax to deal with any more of a nightmare than he (or she?) had to. I think it's a little better... I don't really know. Anyway, now I'm done because I don't want to get in Astynax's way. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  It is better than it was--and I think that @Drmies: would agree with me in saying thank you for the work you've been doing on it. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the encouragement. Very much. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. And you too, Lithistman. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• For anyone who is following this talkpage (and that might be nobody), Astynax and I have made a new agreement. I'm going to work on improving Andrew Heinze's sources (over the next 24 hours or so), and after I'm done, Astynax will give it all a look-see. My goal is to clean up some of the inferior sources and also to reformat everything with the template Astynax uses. I'm excited about that template because it deals with duplicate sources in a user-friendly way. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  I'm following it, EastDimeBoxFrank--and I'm very impressed with how quickly you're learning how to do good work on the project! LHM^{ask me a question} 20:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm so glad you're back, LHM! That is very good news. And thank you for the Citation Barnstar (my first ever). I didn't get a chance to work on this again until an hour ago (I had to do a few things... like sleep). I've been reading up on the new template. I'm still trying to understand exactly how to use it. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoopee Ti Yi Yo! The flags are all gone!!!

Whoopee!! I'm delighted!!! (The use of zillions of exclamation marks is a sure sign of mental instability.) Now... I know that LHM took the last flag down because he had faith that Astynax and I will get those citations in great shape (because he said so), and I assure you, LHM, that we won't disappoint you (and we won't disappoint Drmies either). So onward and upward. And thank you, Lithistman, for having faith in me. I'll live up to your expectations. You betcha! DimeBoxFrank (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Promoted this article from Stub Class to Start Class

Given the improvements that EastDimeBoxFrank has made to this article, I feel like this promotion should be fairly uncontroversial. If anyone from either project disputes the promotion, feel free to do so in this section. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Lithistman, for keeping up with what I'm doing and for upping the class of this article. I just now finished reformatting the citations, but I still have some more to do in other areas. I think that maybe the "notes" section is only supposed to have the year at the end (and not the month or day) and also, it could be that I was supposed to include pages (in the notes section). If so, no problem. I'll just go back and do it. I'm too tired to do it now, but this afternoon I'm going to check everything again to see what can be improved. If you see anything at all that I should do, please let me know (or feel free to do it yourself if you want to). I don't want to turn it over to Astynax until it's as good as I can get it. I'm finished for a few hours, so you don't need to worry that we will be editing at the same time... if your want to get in there and mess around with it. I'm excited that this article moved up a class. I just yesterday read up on classes of articles. Before yesterday, I didn't even know what they were. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Best to use the date of publication as given in the reference. Some columnists, for example, have things published several times a week, so just putting a year may make it more difficult for a reader to locate the cited material. The one thing that stands out as necessary is expanding the lead section to a couple of paragraphs to summarize the major points of the article. Once you have things organized, go for a WP:Peer review and then WP:GA. • Astynax ^talk 16:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

DimeBoxFrank (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Questions for Astynax...

• Hi Astynax. Thank you for your editing and comments.

Question 1. How do I substantiate the article's claim that Heinze's book (Adapting to Abundance) has been referenced in "hundreds of books, articles, and syllabi around the world"? I Googled the book, and the claim appears to be correct... but I don't know how to give that information a citation. I was (lamely) attempting to pull that off by including that Koltun-Fromm source (with all the page numbers). In retrospect, that was a bad way to do it... and all those page numbers look stupid (I think I'll remove that source entirely). So... how do I "back up" the article's claim?" Or do I even need to put a citation there? Anyone can check the statement by Googling the book and seeing how often it's cited (a bunch).

Question 2. Are the names of some Wiki sections (like "footnotes/notes," "references," and "bibliography") arbitrary? In the Heinze article, the sfn template creates "footnotes" which links with "references," and there is no "bibliography." In other articles, George Went Hensley (for instance), the sfn template seems to create a file named "references" (instead of "footnotes") which then links up with "bibliography" (instead of "references"). So what's the deal with that? Does the article creator just decide what he wants to call those sections? If so... what names do you think are the best to use? Or does it matter?

Question 3. In one of your edits today (Revision as of 16:03, 27 September 2014), when you removed the page numbers from "references," you also removed the url. Was that intentional? (The reference is no longer tied to a webpage.) But maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe I should remove the whole danged source (as I suggested above).

Question 4. So... page numbers really belong on "notes" and not on "references"? Or do they sometimes belong on both? What's the rule with that? DimeBoxFrank (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Also... As you suggest, I'll work on coming up with a couple of opening paragraphs. It does look sad now... with only one sentence. Can you suggest an article that I could follow for guidance? Should I concentrate on the history part of his past... or on the theater part... or on both equally? I'm a little lost about what stuff should go in the paragraphs. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Question 1: I don't think this is likely to be challenged, as it is self-evident from something as simple as a search on Google Books/Scholar and similar sources. Such statements do not necessarily require a reference, though I would consider changing from "hundreds" to "frequently referenced" because someone unfamiliar with Heinze is bound to come along and question the statement. For now, I'd just leave it alone.

Question 2: According to MOS:LAYOUT, the use of bibliography is discouraged because the word is used for other things in various works. I don't know how that slipped through in Hensley, but I'll go and fix that. In other articles, I've used "Endnotes" or "Explanatory notes" for relevant additional content, "Footnotes" for short format citations and "References" for full citations. There isn't a mandated scheme for the headings, but there is a long-standing preference against "bibliography" sections.

Question 3: That was unintentional and I'll restore it.

Question 4: As in future others may add facts from another page in one of your references, better to put them in the sfn template (where they'll appear in the notes). No rule, but I imagine things could get messy if a citation to one page ends up pointing to a full citation where other pages are shown. The lead section should give a quick overview of the content. Its statements do not require citations, as it should only summarize fully referenced material found in the body of the article. Try summarizing the most important few points from each of the article's sections. One paragraph (two if it makes reading easier) should be all that is needed. Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil is of similar length, if you want an example. MOS:LEAD gives an overview. If you'd like, I can write a lead, which you can change to suit. • Astynax ^talk 06:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions so throughly. For question 1: I'll change "hundreds" to "frequently." I like that solution. For question 4: I see what you're saying about why the page numbers should be on "notes," and not on "references." Of course. That's completely logical. And... I added page numbers to the footnotes for his journal articles. I also put "Heinze" in those footnotes (where I previously had the names of the journals). I saw you'd done that on one and figured you wanted me to switch the others.)

Finally, I would like it if you'd write a "lead." That would be very helpful. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll give the Lead a try later tonight. • Astynax ^talk 18:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And I saw your edit from earlier: (fixed dashes using a script) How do I do that... use a script instead of a dash? DimeBoxFrank (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The dash conversion script installation instructions are at User talk:GregU/dashes.js. You may also use Alt+0150 to type an n-dash or Alt+0151 to type an m-dash, though the script is great for quickly converting multiple hyphens (-) on a page to n (–) and m (—) dashes. I'm done with the lead section summary, and you are welcome to make additions or changes. • Astynax ^talk 07:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I just looked at your expansion and edits. Thanks so much. Re edits: I see that I need to study the Harvard template. That's a new one for me. And how do you decide when it should be used - when there are a ton of footnotes sitting next to each other? Are there other times? As far as spacing goes... should I never leave spaces between footnotes? Re: your expansion of the lead section... I see... Nice and to-the-point. And there don't have to be citations because (presumably) anything that's said in the lead section is already backed up in the body of the article. Is that correct? What kind of additions would it be good for me to make? Possibly a brief description of his historical perspectives (as evidenced in his articles and books)? And possibly a brief description of the kinds of plays he tends to write... as illustrated in what he's written? Or is what you've already written enough? I don't want to overdo it, but I also want the lead section to be engaging. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Some editors hate strings of footnote numbers (more than 2) as they tend to wrap to the next line. Unfortunately, the linkages in sfn break when enclosed in <ref></ref>, so the workaround is to go to the less useful harv template. Perhaps there is another workaround or fix by now, but I haven't kept current. No other reason to use harv, and you just substitute "harv" for "sfn" when you do use the workaround. There should never be a space between the last word or punctuation and the footnote, and none between footnotes. You are correct as to why citations are not required in the lead section. A bit of overview of his approach to various historical subjects, preferably from reviewers, would be interesting. If there are references that would allow adding a brief synopsis of each book and play to the list at the end of the article, that material might prompt an additional sentence of summarization in the lead. If there are 1 or 2 images available of adverts/playbills/scenes from his plays, those would also be interesting in the body (you would have to confirm that the copyrights allow Wikipedia to host and display such images, however). Bios of living people will almost certainly be added to over time, so don't worry too much that every aspect cannot be presently covered—those things can be added over time as sources are forthcoming. • Astynax ^talk 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info and advice. I've expanded the article some. I was nervous about doing it, so I hope it looks okay. Tell me if I went wrong. I put a formatting thing into the markup that would let the text wrap around the "contents" box. I hated all that white space. I think it looks better. I'm going to implement the rest of your suggestions after I take a break for awhile. Thanks again. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I reread what I'd written (after I had a cup of coffee), and saw some stuff I needed to change... so I did that. It's better now. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The following reference appears to be an orphan (no citations point to it):

* {{cite web|title=Moses, The Author |url=http://www.fringenyc.org/basic_page.php?ltr=M#top |website=fringenyc.org |publisher=New York International Fringe Festival |accessdate=27 September 2014| location=New York, NY |ref={{sfnRef|FringeNYC}}}}

It should probably be removed unless you plan on citing it somewhere in the article. I'm thinking that you can probably go straight to WP:GA for a review when you are done with any further planned edits. • Astynax ^talk 17:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Astynax. Yes. Thanks. I forgot that was there. I'll remove it. I appreciate all the help you've given me. As to the WP:GA... that whole review process gives me the willies. I think of the review people like I think of the IRS... the less a person has to do with them the better. The flags are gone, and that's what I cared about. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Astynax. Re: the WP:GA. I think the reason the review process puts me off is that the various Wiki articles I've looked at have inexplicably divergent ratings by the review committee. What are the benefits of submitting an article to WP:GA? Are my fears about the review process groundless? The kind of "inexplicable" thing I'm talking about is this: the article I'm working on at present is the Luther Adler article. That article has been reviewed as "Start," and yet it had zero sources or references when I began working on it (last week). I've seen many other articles rated less than "Start" that have quite a few decent sources. So what's the deal with the review process? DimeBoxFrank (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It is possible to get a bad reviewer, but most give constructive suggestions. It is a relatively simple process (you add the article to the list and eventually a reviewer will go through it and offer suggestions (which you are not obligated to implement if they don't make sense) and will pass/fail GA status. The difficult part is waiting for a reviewer. If it fails, you can make changes and eventually renominate in a month or two (you likely won't get the same reviewer the second time). As there is an upcoming effort to get rid of the backlog of review requests, this might be a good time to get the article in the queue. • Astynax ^talk 03:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Astynax. Will do. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

By far the most useful aspect of GA and FA is that they act as a stable version. Later on, if (when) an article erodes over time, one can refer back to the promoted version and then compare to see what's changed. This is extremely helpful in maintaining articles in a good version. It is not too much of a problem with esoteric articles that I've worked on but maintenance can be a real pain in the neck for more widely read/edited article. For instance, minding most medical articles, such as schizophrenia, requires repeated watching/cleaning/reviewing etc....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see exactly what you mean and how that would work. Now I'm very interested to get my two articles in shape so I can submit them. I think I'll submit the Andrew R. Heinze one first (probably next week) since it is the closest to done. The Luther Adler will probably take several weeks because I want to expand it quite a bit. I'm very slow... really take my time with things (in general as well as here). EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cas Liber!

Cas Liber... thank you so much for promoting the Andrew R. Heinze page! I just now saw it (from perusing at the Talk page history). I hadn't even realized the article had been promoted. That is fantastic. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Promoted this article to "B Class"

I looked closely at this article, examined what the differences between C and B Class articles were, and decided to promote this article to B Class. I based that promotion on the work Frank has done on this article in the last week. If anyone has serious issues with this promotion, feel free to revert it back to C Class, with an explanation. If you would like further rationale on why I promoted it, I'm willing to do that as well. The next step for this article is to prep for a run at GA. While it would not pass in its current state, in my opinion, I think it definitely has the potential to get there. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the promotion of this article, Lithistman. I'll hold my breath that no one takes the "B" away. I kept going over and over this article in the last week, and I kept finding things to improve... however, I don't think I'll find much else to improve now without some more input from someone (you, or Cas Liber, or Astynax or someone). I'm just not sure what to do next (to move it toward GA). I would love to have suggestions. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber:; @Astynax:. (Sending out the "Bat signal" for you, EDBF! :) LHM^{ask me a question} 17:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Muchas muchas gracias, Lithistman. Bat signal... I like it:) EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• I just realized that I did not closely read the "User:Tony1/How to improve your writing" article that Cas Liber told me about last week. I glanced at it but never got back to it in a proper way (I forgot). So, I will read it carefully tonight and tomorrow and then go over the article again with those lessons in mind. My apologies to Cas Liber. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  That essay might be your best resource as you push the article forward toward a GA run. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I usually think of myself as being a pretty good writer... one who doesn't make a lot of goofy mistakes (I mean mistakes like using extraneous or inessential words etc.). And yet, when doing the exercises there in "User:Tony1/How to improve your writing," it was clear to me that I didn't know as much as I thought I did (i.e. I missed a bunch of the answers in the examples). So, yes, you're right, I'm sure. I'll finish reading Tonys lessons, and then I'll go over the article with a fine tooth comb. Many thanks. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the article is shaping up nicely, one thing - if you scan down from Scholarly writings, you'll notice that there are five consecutive paras (four plus one in the next section that begin, "Heinze...". Any way this can be changed is a good thing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew R. Heinze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141007052228/http://www.usfca.edu/artsci/jssj/program-history/ to http://www.usfca.edu/artsci/jssj/program-history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141009093301/http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/stories/karski.asp to http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/stories/karski.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)