User talk:Michael Goodyear/Archive 13

Feburary 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: "Black women" New: "Mathematicians and statisticians" New: "Geofocus: Island women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your GA nomination of Julia Stephen

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Julia Stephen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coffee -- Coffee (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Julia Stephen

The article Julia Stephen you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Julia Stephen for things which need to be addressed. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women's History Month 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons. Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative. Women's History Month 2018 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your GA nomination of Julia Stephen

The article Julia Stephen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Julia Stephen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coffee -- Coffee (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		Great that you are working on Woolf

She certainly deserves it. Julia too. I have been trying to knock some shape into Vita. The whole article was sex obsessed and now it's a bit more even. Very uneven in other ways. I would hope for it to an encyclopedic article about a professional writer and gardener. I'm not sure what hope there is of that - esp with the upcoming film. But do add in any usefulness you encounter on your travels. Many thanks. Anna (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, thank you for your kind words. I was very impressed with your contributions. perhaps we can discuss the issues you touch on in more detail. See my user page for email. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Michael Goodyear. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Newspapers.com Account - The Wikipedia Library.
Message added 19:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Julia Stephen

Hello! Your submission of Julia Stephen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Julia Stephen

On 13 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Julia Stephen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Stephen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Julia Stephen), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for weighing in on the ANI discussion regarding the problems with my editing. Though a lot of it was difficult for me to hear (read) I believe I will become a better editor as a result. I do have a question about referencing. What do recommend since so many 'styles' are acceptable even within Project Med? I think it may have been you pointing this out in one of your comments. Also, bots come by and periodically change the references in articles I am working on. Then other editors change the formatting by simple things like putting " within a ref name. Since it may be that I am oblivious to this aspect of editing, your advice may help. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 23:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara, don't worry about the bots putting in ". I get that all the time and it doesn't do anything. The main thing is to be consistent among all the possible styles. One thing I did notice when I was directed to look at the lead on List of vaginal tumors was that the wikitext was very difficult to read due to the very large number of citations and also their length. Many of them were full of empty fields like |language= .

By contrast look at one of my recent GA like Julia Stephen or my last FA William T. Stearn or Women's Health. What I do is to minimise cluttering the wikitext. I use two styles, but both rely on placing all the details in the bibliography, so that {{sfn|Author|Year}} is all that appears in the text. For books with page numbers, {{sfn|Author|Year|loc=p. page number}}. If you want to refer to a specific page available online with a url, I use a different style, because the url is too long. I place <ref name=name>{{harvnb|Author|Year|loc=[url p. page number]}}</ref> in the References section, then <ref name=name/> in the wikitext. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stared out using that style so that I could use a bibliography but was told it was inappropriate (by a medical editor). I know how to get around that, though, and in the future will leave a note on the talk page regarding the use of consistent referencing of the article. Excellent advice. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 18:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well look at my HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer and Women's health for medical examples. Some further advice, since I don't know you or your background. If you are not a content expert, be very careful about your sources and content. It is best to "triangulate", make sure three independent sources agree, before adding content.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut and pasted the Virginia Woolf article into my draftspace to view all the coding, styles and conventions used in this piece. I am letting you know because I don't want this action to be interpreted in any other way except to study your referencing and apply it to future drafts of mine. The triangulation suggestion makes complete sense. Some editors have mentioned that I may tend to provide more references than are needed, though. I generally don't like to add content unless there are at least two references for support, but for some rare genetic conditions, this is not always possible. I mean this sincerely: If I limit myself in the (future) to adding content that can be supported by at least two references, do you believe this may be able to diffuse some of the editing problems that I have? Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 09:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't necessarily have to add every reference you have consulted, but finding 3 that agree gives you more confidence before adding.

With regards to the {{cite}}s with blank fields I am wondering how you are generating them, for instance are you using all the editing tools in your Preferences? If so and you use cite and the drop down templates, pasting in a url, doi or pmid should autopopulate it and not generate any blank fields. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]