| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Olmsted Locks and Dam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Major additions to the Olmsted Locks and Dams article in April 2014
editIn April 2014, the Olmsted Locks and Dam article gained a great deal of new material.
I think that this material can be used to improve the article, but that it requires a thorough edit. I am concerned that in its raw form it may not measure up to Wikipedia guidelines. In particular, there is a great deal of information that was copied word for word from one or more articles (for example, the Sept. 2013 St. Louis Post-Dispatch article[1]) available on the web; this might take the April 2014 changes awfully close to Wikipedia's stance against plagiarism[2].
Wikipedia has a couple of article policies that might help to get the article back on track, such as
The main thing is to keep in mind that Wikipedia is aiming for a tone that sounds like an encyclopedia, so that each article focuses on facts and avoids coloring the facts with an author's points of view.
Other references:
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style[5]
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not[6]
- WP:PROMOTION[7]
- WP:SOAP[8]
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch[9][10]
- WP:EDITORIALIZING[11]
- WP:RELTIME[12]
Woods1630 (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/illinois-dam-costing-billions-more-than-expected-as-delays-mount/article_3eb26385-6083-5004-8d74-75a174b7ba0b.html
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Avoiding_plagiarism
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEACOCK#Words_that_may_introduce_bias
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEACOCK#Expressions_that_lack_precision
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EDITORIALIZING#Editorializing
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RELTIME#Relative_time_references
Tone
editThe 2nd half of this article is written with a very negative tone. Much of it was copied and pasted from a St. Louis Dispatch news article that just tears the Olmsted project and Corps of engineers apart. I'm not used to seeing articles this biased on Wikipedia. The article just flows weird in general. It's like half positive stuff from the Corps website and half reasons why the project is a total screw-up. I agree with the recommendations of the user above me.. it should be more neutral and contain less plagiarism.
-jimmy543 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy543 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)