Talk:List of people from Goa
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Charles Correa
edit@Rejoy2003 I believe that his description may have been subject to plagiarism. I corrected.
Encylopedia Britannica: Charles Correa, (born September 1, 1930, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, British India [now in Telangana state, India]—died June 16, 2015, Mumbai, India), Indian architect and urban planner known for his adaptation of Modernist tenets to local climates and building styles. In the realm of urban planning, he is particularly noted for his sensitivity to the needs of the urban poor and for his use of traditional methods and materials.
Wikipedia article: Goan origin, Indian architect and urban planner. Credited with the creation of modern architecture in post-Independent India, he was celebrated for his sensitivity to the needs of the urban poor and for his use of traditional methods and materials LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have reverted your edit since the encyclopaedia itself is not a reliable source. You definitely need to read WP:RSP again, before any other editors start warning you which will eventually lead you to a WP:Block or WP:Ban from Wikipedia. Rejoy2003(talk) 03:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I re-read the WP:BRITANNICA section. Can you please point out where it states that the reference is unreliable? The description reads that there is no consensus on its reliability. Furthermore, the icon takes me to the WP:MREL section, which states that the source is marginally reliable and that it can be used based on context, "It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered." However, the reference is not clearly marked as unreliable as described by the WP:GUNREL and WP:DEPREC sections. What factors would you consider to warrant this reference as unreliable regarding the details I included? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- First of all, I have fixed whatever the issue was with two of the architect entries in this list. Secondly, Wikipedia doesn't promote or encourage using a WP:TERTIARY source. You'll need a WP:SECONDARY source to back your claim up. Read what WP: RSP says about EB,
Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available.
That is exactly my take, I'd prefer and so does "MOST" of the editors prefer secondary sources over such tertiary sources. I'd advice caution when using them as "sole references to prove your statement". Rejoy2003(talk) 07:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- First of all, I have fixed whatever the issue was with two of the architect entries in this list. Secondly, Wikipedia doesn't promote or encourage using a WP:TERTIARY source. You'll need a WP:SECONDARY source to back your claim up. Read what WP: RSP says about EB,
- I re-read the WP:BRITANNICA section. Can you please point out where it states that the reference is unreliable? The description reads that there is no consensus on its reliability. Furthermore, the icon takes me to the WP:MREL section, which states that the source is marginally reliable and that it can be used based on context, "It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered." However, the reference is not clearly marked as unreliable as described by the WP:GUNREL and WP:DEPREC sections. What factors would you consider to warrant this reference as unreliable regarding the details I included? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)