Talk:International media reaction to the 2008 United States presidential election

Initial feedback

Hello Panda609,

Thank you for inviting me to comment on your article and yes, thank you for your participation on the Avatar page.

I will spend some more time going through your draft thoroughly, but as an initial thought, I feel that you have got a lot of very interesting and comprehensive information and that this kind of well-sourced analytical articles are best presented in a form of a solid narrative rather than an assortment of quotes more suited for a Critical review section format. In your place I would slightly rewrite the article in your own words as a single analytical piece, but referencing every fact and keeping most of the names and sources in footnotes.

I will get back to you on this one as I am now in the middle of an important meeting. Thank you for your good work. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions Cinosaur. I will try to add more analysis. I really like all the references to the authors, newspaper names and countries, so I will see what others have to say. I was inspired because I felt International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008 did not suffice. That is just a boilerplate list of congratulations from world leaders.--Panda609 (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, your editing is improving the article by the hour, especially with all the images now in place. You may consider working some orphaned lines into bigger paragraphs. Also, according to WP:MOS#quotations, blockquoted text does not require quotation marks. And it advises against putting authors' names in footnotes, unless their direct quotes are rewritten as sentences in your own words. I will be back. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The bot is deleting the images because the article isn't published, but I'll add them back. I'm going to work on writing more of a narrative now. Also: I'm confused about "advises against putting authors' names in footnotes." Can you show me where you are talking about? Thanks --Panda609 (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here:

Attribution

The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section.

I meant to say "advises against putting authors' names exclusively in footnotes."Cinosaur (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK for fixes?

Panda609, would you rather have me report suggested cosmetic fixes, like spacing and quotation marks to you or fix them myself? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do make any cosmetic fixes as necessary. It may go through some more rewriting and need another copyedit when all's said and done. --Panda609 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback

Hmm. It needs a little polishing, but it seems like a good article to me. In regards to the polishing, you should go ahead and properly format the improperly formatted headings; I'm referring to the capitalization problem. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings about that. The reference formatting is not the best, per Wikipedia guideline standards, but that should be okay. It is not like you are going for Good or Featured article status right out the gate. I do advise you, though, to request feeback about this article at the Barack Obama article or at one of the related articles United States presidential election, 2008 and Presidency of Barack Obama. Articles about political figures are not taken lightly on Wikipedia, as you have already likely assumed, and it would be best to get feedback from the usual editors of the Barack Obama-related articles before creating this one. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panda609 (talk • contribs)

References

You really must list the source of the reference, that is the work in which it was published, in the citation and not depend on the link. Similarly you should list the author when this is known, and a page number when this is available (obviously not for purely online sources). Purely online sources should IMO list the "date accessed". See WP:CITE and Help:Footnotes for more details

I urge you to use {{Cite news}}, {{Cite web}} and {{Cite journal}} as appropriate, although manually formatted citations are acceptable if they contain full data. Depending on the link is a very bad idea: 1) if means that if the link goes dead the info is lost, and 2) it means that a person can not scan the list of references to see the scope of the sources cited, but must follow each link, a tedious process.

The ref toolbar gadget (which you can add in your wikipedia preferences) makes adding standard references significantly easier. You might want to consider using list-defined references. These have the advantage that all the metadata is collected at the end of the articel and does not clutter up the body. They have the disadvantage that if you are using section editing, you will need two edits to insert each reference for the first time -- one for the metadata and one for where the reference is used.

I hope this advice is helpful. DES ^(talk) 16:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another source

That you may find interesting and which connects Barack Obama's election with Avatar. Cinosaur (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article on WorldMeets.Us

Hi Panda609. As I can see, you're using a lot of translations from WorldMeets.US here -- a great resource that Themes in Avatar has also benefited a lot from. It's a pity it does not have its own Wikipedia entry yet. As someone with a background in journalism (per your user page), would you consider creating it, so it is given due coverage and references to the project's translations could also be properly wikified? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a need to do that. Let me see what I can dig up on them.--Panda609 (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate statement

Reflections on Bush

"President George W. Bush had been criticized in America and abroad for his foreign policies, including his decisions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan during his eight years in office."

While Bush was criticized for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was widely supported in most countries. In fact international opinion of US foreign policy only declined post 2003, while it remained at 71% prior to it and suffer no negative drop during the invasion of Afghanistan.