You recently reviewed an article I created and tagged it as follows;
"This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
The article in question uses in line citations throughout from established and widely recognised reliable sources which are accuratly recorded in the reference section. Therefore, I assume you have tagged it in error, so I have deleted your tag. If you think this is wrong, please explain which part of the article you think is not adequetly cited. Graemp (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Hi, Graemp. The tag was not in error, if you note your reference section you will see that reference one and two just say "www.ukWhosWho.com" and do not link directly to the article you are sourcing your information from. I am resorting the tag, please feel free to remove it when you've corrected the issue. Thanks for you hard work on the article. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Wikipedia does not require cited sources to have on-line links. In this case, had I provided one, it would not have provided access to that source for any non-subscriber to the site. Thanks for your interest. Graemp (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Regardless of this, you still need to provide to provide a direct link, Graemp, if for no other reason than for baseline verification. If you are unable to to do so, then quite obviously the tag should remain, as additional sources would be needed since those you provided cannot be verified.Sulfurboy (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
- If you glance at my contributions page Sulfurboy you will see a large number of articles that I have either created or added to. The vast majority include this particular source, referenced in the same way. You are the first reviewer I have encountered who did not like this form of verification. Graemp (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I agree with Sulfurboy here. @Graemp: the reason the page was tagged is that the citations are formatted very poorly. You should use templates such as {{cite web}} to format your citations and ensure they are not missing any needed information. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Per Jackmcbarn's review. I will be restoring the tag. Thanks.Sulfurboy (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}