Talk:AGRIS

Editing

Thank you for leaving a note on my talk page. However, the guidance you are looknig for is at the top of the page. Review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and see what you can glean from there. If you have specific questions after reviewing it, let me know. On a side note, your article needs additional references in areas where you bullet point items. Hope that helps. I'll monitor your talk page so we can continue with this effort. BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 13:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tedder!! Some serious page restructuring has been going on since I last wrote to you, as inspired by the reference page you sent me. I'm removing external links from the article as I spot them. Would you mind taking a look at the page, seeing whether the style is anywhere closer to where it should be, please? Please feel free to repsond on my talk page. Thanks in anticipation, Isiaunia (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to images, one thing to ask is "How does this image add value and how can I explain that value in a short description to the reader?". There are three images in this article each with an external link to the website. This is essentially spam. The revolving globe and more than image of the logo is probably not relavent. The extranl links within the image descriptions should definitely be removed. BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 12:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, interesting remarks, BlindEagle. The revolving globe is there to let readers see the AGRIS initiative within a global context, as the revolving globe immediately conveys the idea of a... "global" cooperative network which AGRIS is, comprising over 250 Centres. As to the remaining two images, those in fact represent the old logo, which AGRIS has been associated with for the last 35 years or so and, the new one, stressing how AGRIS is not an initiative falling exclusively under the auspices of FAO, but part of a larger, international project carried out in partnership by several other international organziations, called CIARD. Each image thus not only refers to, but intrinsically identifies a stage or phase in the evolution of AGRIS. I am thankful for your remarks, in the absence of which I would not have been able to clarify :-) External links, I have been told above, should be avoided in the body of an article and may stay so long as they are used as reference, hence in this form. Please feel free to rectify, should that not be the case! In any event, those links are not needed at all costs in the image captions, whilst you have just inspired a major amelioration to the captions. Thanks! Isiaunia (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, I wished to thank you, BlindEagle for your earlier posting. Apologies for not responding earlier (internet connection problems.... at my end, that is :-) I agree, the bullet point lists would need verification. However, whilst time and users will tell whether the goals AGRIS is aiming for in its new phase have been/haven't been achieved, how, to whcih extent and if at all..... there is another bullt point list which refers more to the advantages of digital libraries, i.e. their "round the clock" availability etc. These are more or less matter of fact assumptions, as something that is available online would seem to offer that advantage (being accessible 24/hours a day, unless under miantenance for instance).... were it not for one's internet connection and its momentary or permament limitation/s..... Always willing to learn how ameliorating these points might be possible. Thanks in anticipation!!Isiaunia (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point, are you trying to go to GA-Class with this article or just put it out there for people to edit? The answer will help understand how much help you may or may not want. There are still large swaths of text that are not cited and it still reads as if it came from a bilboard. I did some spot checking of a very few references, you have a done a good job of paraphrasing of the few I checked. BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 20:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a bold cleanup of the first two sections to give an idea of a more neutral tone that should be taken in the article, fwiw. tedder (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Added some {{fact}} tags to help indicate where citations are needed in the first two paragraphs. Those first two sections look great. Removing the spinning globe and changing the placement of the logos helps draw in the reader. BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 12:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi BlindEagle and Tedder, tahnks very much for all of your time and efforts! Yes I am dedicated to making this a good article so that more readers may find it truly useful. It's great that you have thought of ways of improving the article, and thank you for the tags, too. Let's continue to cooperate!! Thanks!!!Isiaunia (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. I updated the The AGRIS repository section. Or, I started to update it. The list in the paragraph really wasn't working for me as it was a little hard to get through with the roman numerals in the way. I put it in a numbered list that needs some attention. The subsection after the lead does not have any refs at all and probably needs one or two for each paragraph depending on your sources. BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Blindeagle! Took some time to udpate the section that has been tagged for being without references, there are now two that have been added. That subsection also quotes Wikipedia's Digital Libraries as main article. You may wish to have a look. Have also added here and there, in the Repository section. Will continue to further work on it and also I'll find other references to quote where tags signal a lack thereof :-) Isiaunia (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the {{unreferenced}} section tag instead of tagging each paragraph individually. Instead of checking your sources, I read this section a few times. There are two questions that need to be answered:

1. How does this relate to AGRIS? Could this be summed up on a few sentences?
2. Why does a long description a digital library necessary? Are we comparing and contrasting to inform the reader about one thing or another?

The way I see this section is that it is a description of a digital library. Is it adding anything to telling the reader what AGRIS can or cannot do for them? Just my perspective... BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for being so prompt in your response, BlindEagle! Yours are very good points. In fact, that material is a little "raw" as it currently reads now. However, it serves the purpose of reminding me to make the reader see how AGRIS too is part of larger initiatives based on digitised resources and what they have to offer in terms of information management/information accessibility. I cannot exclude reshaping the section and deleting and restructuring sentences. That bulky wealth of information is there to remind me of what needs be done :-) Isiaunia (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Isiaunia, it's important to put AGRIS in context, but overcontextualizing (such as giving a history of the Internet, or saying that AGRIS works like Google Scholar, Yahoo, and Scirus) doesn't help anyone.

My apologies for removing valid edits that you've made today- but please try to make the article more about AGRIS and less like an advert, not more. tedder (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder, glad to see you again! Er, as written above, I only put more so it would be easier for me to take away and reshape/restructure. All of your observations are really helpful. I would like to revert to the earlier version as the editing I had done had contributed to the reshaping and had "cut off" redundant information. I am therefore taking the liberty to revert to my earlier edits and take this opportunity to eliminate parts that are digression-like. A little context though may be beneficial to the reader. Please feel free to further edit, only if possible, would you agree to leaving editing that you deem legitimate, whilst parts that you do not think are necessary you may either delete or discuss first? Thank you for all of your attention to this project! Isiaunia (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Isi. I hadn't realized that's why you were re-inserting the content. Feel free to revert my revert as you see fit. However, know that at some point this article will need to undergo some major surgery. There's no timeline on that, but the changes to bring it in line with Wikipedia's guidelines will likely involve large changes, not tiny ones. I'm looking forward to seeing your edits this weekend. tedder (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, Tedder and BlindEagle :-) I am striving for a goooood quality article on Wikipedia, GA+ and above :-) That would really help the article come through as it should be!Hope this exercise is not tedious for you. As for me, large changes are the last thing I fear hence major surgery sounds like honey to the bee, Ted :-) Isiaunia (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Tedder. Some further editing, deletions, text excerpted from the main article and reported as reference. Also as inspired by BlindEagle's link to articles assessment criteria. For your comments and suggestions, please - from you both, please, BlindEagle and Tedder :-) Anticipated thanks, Isiaunia (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Assessment

Here is a good link to some broad guidelines to what should or should not be included in articles and how they are rated - Quality scale. This may assist in guiding your decisions on what to include in an article and why. Cheers. BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 21:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well received, BlindEagle - shall use some of the week end to try and apply the guidelines to this project, also as agreed above with Tedder. Thanks! Isiaunia (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Data indexing in AGRIS

AGRIS#Data_indexing_in_AGRIS:_the_AGROVOC_thesaurus refers directly to AGROVOC. While the official site proposes the AGRIS Search Categories.

1. The Search Categories in this context need to be covered.

2. There is no logical relationship between them (AGRIS Search Categories and AGROVOC) or there code labels. Compare for example the term Natural resources in both. At best AGRIS has thereof NT “Soil erosion, conservation and reclamation”, while AGROVOC shows the RT “reclamation”. Could this be discussed.

BTW, why the most integrated topical resource library should be of Low Importance?

Cheers.--Connection (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Data indexing in AGRIS... Again

This Section is entirely misleading.

Any reference to AGROVOC will be removed.

--Connection (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AGRIS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://iospress.metapress.com/content/l15562xk70234n79/fulltext.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140908155657/http://eprints.rclis.org/21112/1/2013_EFITA%20Pushing_Pulling.pdf to http://eprints.rclis.org/21112/1/2013_EFITA%20Pushing_Pulling.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fao.org/kce/consultations/coaim/coaim-2000/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)