Talk:Hansard Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Primary sources[edit]

WP:PSTS : "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Currently the article is referenced by blogs and websites. I made the mistake of formatting them as references with the note "should be replaced with proper sources per WP:RS". I'm going to remove them and we can discuss more about proper sources here.

In general, the sources all fall into the category of self-published sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

i had used those sources as they are the ones which come up on google and obviously where better to get information than from official sites. As for references, why were they removed?i had inititially tagged them as external links(which i think is wrong) but thought as references that worked. Id looked at other articles in this category and they seem to go in a similar vain and don't have secondary sources as far as i can tell. I am working on getting other sources, to make the article better, but that takes time! Comsintern (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. We need better sources than those, otherwise the article looks promotional. I'm not one for long explanations, so keep asking questions and I'll do my best to clarify further.
Yes, many articles are in the same state. I do a lot of what I've done here to help get them fixed: remove poor references and links, tag the article, and start discussions.
Take your time. There's no rush. Just keep the tags until the issues are resolved because they are there to notify other editors of the problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)