Talk:Hazel Kirk, Pennsylvania
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Niteshift36 in topic Broken form of a footnote
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 March 2013. The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Sources
editI'm finding it hard to accept the two sources I've marked in here. I'm not so sure they'd pass at RSN. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- What, a newspaper and a non-commercial historical website? Hmmmm, you take your AfD nominations very seriously, don't you? Carrite (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Look sport, I'm sorry that you don't think WP:RS applies to your article, but it does. The source here is not a newspaper. The source is a website run by two women that professes to have copied it word for word. If the actual source were the now-defunct Reporter, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. It isn't. And a "non-commercial" website doesn't make it reliable. I tagged it. If you really want to push it, we'll take it to RSN and if they agree, it won't be tagged, it'll be removed (alone with the then unsourced information). Niteshift36 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Broken form of a footnote
editSomehow in the course of THIS edit by Niteshift36, the form showing in the footnotes of Footnote 3 was broken. I'm really not figuring out how to fix it. Help? Carrite (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- What isn't working? I see the source clearly and every place that it's being (over)cited. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)