Talk:Loyalist Golf and Country Club

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Golf Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Golf, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Golf-related articles 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.GolfWikipedia:WikiProject GolfTemplate:WikiProject GolfGolf articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article Tone

The article has been written like an editorial or news item, or seems to have been copy-pasted from a newsletter. For instance, the article is peppered with inappropriate content such as "a couple of supportive wives who set aside the cold, and faithfully delivered cups of hot chili from their golf cart." Definitely not suitable for an encyclopedia. Perhaps the original writer can rewrite? Please also include your sources.-- BC _{talk to me} 20:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments appreciated. Copy was freely provided by those involved, at the course, and is not copyrighted. Agreed, the tone is not completely encyclopedic, but will remedy with new content.Dave H (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy doesn't need to be "copyrighted". If has been taken from another source word for word, it is still copyvio. Copied material, and material that is not properly sourced don't last very long. It's always better to write copy in your own words using the (reliably sourced) material as the reference. You can't say that the source was from "Mr. Henderson". This is considered original research, so is not a valid source. All content must be from reliable, published sources. Also see reliable sources and wp:verifiability. Wikipedia is just a compendium of already-published sources that must be identified. -- BC _{talk to me} 02:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]