Talk:Joann Peterson

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Initial Talk

A new page for Joann Peterson. References and citations added. William Meyer 18:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Template - Request for Removal

To: talk|Matisse User Talk You tagged this page Feb 2008 for cleanup. I have done an extensive revision of it now, with inline citations. Can the Cleanup Template be removed from the page now?

Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost! You need page numbers for anything that has pages. Also, you cannot use the subject of the article as a reference for herself, except for a quote from her book or something like that. Wikipedia goes by WP:V and WP:RS which requires reliable third party sources. So, for example, for this sentence cannot be reference by the article subject: "She taught seminars internationally, and was the first Director of Education at the Haven Institute."

So, for example, for the sentence, "She taught seminars internationally, and was the first Director of Education at the Haven Institute." Another example is the information under Contributions. For some of it you do have sources, but you cannot include the subject of the article as a source.

Also, you need to delink the dates and words like Spring, per Overlinking and underlinking. Feel free to ask me any questions.

Also, your footnotes don't quite work as expected. Take a look at the Harvard referencing in Albert Speer to see how they are supposed to work. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples as it is essential that you use page numbers. See WP:Footnotes and WP:CITE. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand what you have done in this article regarding the footnotes. They are not working as they are supposed to and they have no page numbers to reference. You must have page numbers for anything that has pages. If you have the page numbers for each reference, I can help you figure out the format.

Just as an example of how the reference style you have chosen to use is supposed to work, look at Albert Speer. If you click a footnote in the article, you immediately jump down to the footnote section and the citation to that footnotes with the page numbers. If you click the link with the page numbers, you immediately jump to the Bibliography where all the information for the book is listed.

Do you see what I mean? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. I appreciate your willingness to help.

I guess I'm not as smart as I thought. I had understood that the Harvard Reference form would jump to the Reference in question (and it could be to either something in "References" or in "Publications", and if the reference had a page number, then it would show in the body of the text of the article (as in the first footnote Wong and McKeen ... the citation jumps to the Wong and McKeen document, and the page reference is in the body of the paragraph itself). But maybe I'm really off base, and I'm not using this properly. I had understood (it appears "I MIS-understood") that I could use either the form of the Speers article, or the form that I used. To pull my part of the load, I'll study up what I can so that I am an intelligent student of what you want to show me.

Anyway, I'll study this further and try to bring myself up to speed on what you are showing me. I'll start with the Harvard References page, and begin reading. Any suggestions about Wiki pages to study?

I'll get back to you when I have looked into this further. Thanks again ... your positive attitude comes through your words. William Meyer (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used the Harvard style in an article I have written, and I know many editors would not even attempt it. By looking at articles that use it, I have confidence you can figure it out. Otherwise, Wikipedia:Citation templates offers two easily implemented styles: Citation and cite xxx. Many people prefer the Citation template. The Harvard is good for an article with lots of references to the same few books, but on different page numbers. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your responsiveness. I have looked at the pages you recommended. Now, I have a decision to make .... to try to master the Harvard style, or to change to the Citation or cite xxx.

1. I understand about overlinking ... I'll fix it.

2. Page references ... I am missing some page references ... so, I'm working with what I have. But I understand that I should have them there if they are available.

3. The "look and feel" I want for the article is like the Harvard seems to produce ... jump the reader right down to the detailed description of the referenced material. I find the Speers article references overwhelming as a reader .... so, I wanted to have it "user-friendly" and attractive to the reader who really wanted to get at the footnoted references easily.

Q1 Can I get this reader-friendly "look and feel" with the Citation Template?

Q2Do you know offhand about any Harvard referenced articles that show me the proper way to fix the inadequacies in the Peterson article?

Many thanks. William Meyer (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was looking at Wikipedia:Citation templates and it says at the top: "If there is a possibility that Harvard referencing will be used in the article in future, consider using the Citation templates (second row for each source) for additional linking functionality with Template:Harvard citation. This linking from cite to reference does not work with the other templates shown below."

Maybe your problem has something to do with that. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm .... I think I was kind of cavalier in how I used the templates .... I noticed I was mixing a reference for a book and one for a newspaper, but it seemed to work, so I let it go. Anyway, it looks like my design needs to have considerably more basic consistency than I had applied. I'm humbled by this ... I thought I knew what I was doing. William Meyer (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further ... I have re-read the Wikipedia:Citation templates after you pointed out the issue with Citation and future Harvard reference.

Do you think I can salvage what I have done in Harvard format by standardizing my Harvard references to the second row examples consistently. I would rather not start all over again ... I'd like to fix what I have. What do you think? Many thanks William Meyer (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) In this Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert Speer, if you read down far enough, there is this discussion:

Comments: I believe there's something wrong with the Harvard referencing; the links in the citations do not seem to lead anywhere, when in fact they are supposed to link to the works under "Bibliography", yes? Also, per WP:DASH, dashes for page ranges in the citations need to be changed to en dashes. María (habla conmigo) 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied what was already in the article. Can someone point me in the right direction in fixing the refs? I'll fix the dashes after I fix the refs, just in case I totally have to redo the refs.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swapping the various {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates to {{citation}} seems to have solved the issue. - auburnpilot AuburnPilot

This leads me to think that you could salvage it as some of the books under publications are not using the citation template. Also, perhaps separating the References from the Publications has something to do with it. You do not have a list of clickable references as the Albert Speer article does. I tried putting {{reflist}} into your article, which usually generates the list of footnotes, but it didn't generate the list. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on this tonight and try to get some clarity on it. I can certainly fix the obvious problems right away ... overlinking, and the use of Peterson's own material. I'll get back to you. Thanks again. I'm eager to get this fixed .... William Meyer (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To: Mattisse (Talk)

Hello again. I have tried to be proactive and fix what I can.

I have removed the "overlinks" regarding dates, and I have removed any footnotes that refer to Peterson writings.

Also, I have tracked down page references for most of the footnotes.

There are no Peterson writings in the "References" section now.

Now it behaves the way I thought Harvard references would do ... click on the footnote reference, and the reader is jumped to the information about the source.

What do you suggest now? Thanks for your help William Meyer (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the problem now. In Albert Speer, the editor has written the in-text references thus: <ref>{{Harvnb|van der Vat|1997|p=60.}}</ref>. He surrounds each one with <ref></ref> Whereas, you have written yous this way {{Harv |McNally|2002|p=2}}, If you format them with the <ref></ref> and add a footnotes section with {{reflist}} under it, it will work. I stuck them in the page and it works now! —Mattisse (Talk) 14:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed cleanup tag

I fixed a few things and removed the tag.

References always go after punctuation with no space
When there are more than one reference in a row, there are no commas.
In quote boxes, there are no quote marks or italic, unless they are contained in the original quote.

WP:MoS and its multiple subpages contain all the rules for wikipedia writing style. (They are sometimes difficult to understand, and maybe modified, so you have to check up on them.)

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I feel so relieved to having this put right. I am working on several other articles, and I can now use the detailed instructions and corrections you have provided to set the articles right from the beginning. I am grateful for your spirit of cooperation, and your dogged determination to get to the bottom of things. It has been a pleasure working with you. Best wishes. William Meyer (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

From where are her degrees? Which of them are honorary? This needs to be added. Of the photos, which single one ofthem is most suitable--the licenses need to be checked. WM, can you prove ownership of the copyrights? DGG (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed these issues now. The degrees, dates and institutions have been added, and I have reduced the photographs to one, which I took myself. William Meyer (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]