Template:Did you know nominations/Louisiana Digital Media Archive
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Louisiana Digital Media Archive
edit- ... that the Louisiana Digital Media Archive is the first media collections collaboration between an American state archives and a public broadcaster?
- Reviewed: Argeș County Museum and Domoni
Moved to mainspace by Michael Barera (talk). Self-nominated at 20:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC).
long enough at 5,920 characters, new enough created on 18 may and moved to main space 22 May, well sourced although I would prefer source 1 was split as there are 3 sentences before the inline citation 1 kicks in although it is all covered by that source. QPQ done. neutral and very informative and hook is sourced and interesting.Blethering Scot 21:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've always felt that references work (and look) best when they are consolidated, as I have done with inline citation [1] in this article (as well as the rest of the references). If others feel strongly and believe that I should add in extra citations to make the referencing more clear in this article, I'll be happy to do that. Michael Barera (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- There isn't really any need where the source backs up all the information proceeding the citation. I just prefer it to be more closely referenced when there is a gap of several sentences. Its not really an issue, just my preference.Blethering Scot 15:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've always felt that references work (and look) best when they are consolidated, as I have done with inline citation [1] in this article (as well as the rest of the references). If others feel strongly and believe that I should add in extra citations to make the referencing more clear in this article, I'll be happy to do that. Michael Barera (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not to be different, but my personal preference is consolidation of references to remove (what I perceive to be) redundancy. If the community disagrees with me, though, I won't stand in the way over an issue as minor as this. Michael Barera (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- No one is disagreeing, it is totally fine. Will state again, article is good to go as it is well sourced.Blethering Scot 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not to be different, but my personal preference is consolidation of references to remove (what I perceive to be) redundancy. If the community disagrees with me, though, I won't stand in the way over an issue as minor as this. Michael Barera (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)