Redcknight
A note
editRedcknight, you need to do two things. First of all, you need to establish your username as an account...that is, just CREATE one. No big deal. The second thing: you need to read through WP:MOS and concentrate on the reference styles for CITEWEB. Lastly, 100% of your article looks like WP:OR because of your lack of footnote citations. I know you do not intend to have this so you will find these answers in WP:MOS. Also, welcome to Wiki!! Read through the Welcome editing etcetera instructions. I'll be happy to reclassify your STUB into START in the meantime because it is a START article. No problem. Finally, you need to re-edit the peer review page (which you entered) and remove your request. Your article is not yet ready for a peer review. Read through the instructions about B-class articles (on that Peer Review page) and then look at the guidelines (criteria) for B-class (by clicking on the small B in the quality rating template. Then, when you feel ready for a B-class rating, drop me a note on my User talk:ThsQ and I will be happy to classify your article as B. Any questions? Just ask anyway... ThsQ (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Navigating the assessment process
editWelcome to Wikipedia. I responded to another editor about this process and thought it might be helpful to post part of here as well.
Peer review is not an automatic part of the quality class assessment process, it something that may be requested to garner suggestions for improving the article in the actual assessment process. Bot-reviews are perfectly helpful in that at the point when an article may be ready to pass from the B-class and below levels, there are some necessary technical requirements for which the bot-review can provide guidance. I would suggest that a new user join a WikiProject of his or her interest and work within the project's assessment department to learn more about the assessment project. Assessments of stub, C-class and B-class are fairly easy to make and the requirements are quite clear so those can be done by anyone. A good place to study the requirements for all biography articles can be reviewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Quality scale. All projects have more detailed requirements but all are based on the same general assessment criteria. The assessment process is very organized once an article passes that point, and teams of editors actually work together to come to consensus on assessment and critique for those articles.
An article's quality starts with STUB, then C-CLASS, then B-CLASS. At that point, a PEER REVIEW may or may not be requested, depending on issues that might exist around an article. In any case, once that has happened or not, the next level is a GA (GOOD ARTICLE) REVIEW. There are specific requirements for each level which are all outlined in the assessment sections of the various WikiProjects, but all projects follow a generally proscribed criteria. The good article requirements are listed at WP:GA?. When an article is ready for a GA review, one would submit a request at WP:GAN for assessment, and generally, the article is reviewed by persons who are well-experienced and informed on those requirements. A WP:GA is a mark of achievement for the article and isn't grantly lightly. The article must go through the process to be listed as a good article. I would not advise a new editor to jump in so far as to conduct reviews on articles at this level until that person has some solid editing and process experience on Wikipedia, simply because one must be quite familiar with what is required, through experience. In any case, once an article has been listed as a good article, the next level is A-class. A-class is a relatively new level and is still in its formative stages. Not all projects are presently assessing articles at this level because of that. Once an article has met all the requirements at lower levels, it may be nominated for feature article status. The criteria for featured articles is at WP:FA? and requesting a peer review may be most helpful at this point. Criteria at this point is very exacting and articles are nominated for FA at WP:FAC. Once an article has been classified as WP:FA, major changes should no longer be required or conducted without involved discussion at the article's talk page. I am leaving a very useful template to help with reference formatting. I hope all of this is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at my talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Guide to referencing
editClick on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.
| Using references (citations) |
|---|
|
I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can remove unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. If you need any assistance, let me know. -- Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, and authorised web sites. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is original research (e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research), or another wikipedia article.
The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section (unless it already exists). This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:
The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):
Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference.
Open the edit box for this page, copy the following text (inserting your own text where indicated), paste it at the bottom of the page and save the page:
(End of text to copy and paste.) It should appear like this:
You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For an online newspaper source, it might look like this:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Note the single square brackets around the URL and the article title. The format is:
Make sure there is a space between the URL and the Title. This code results in the URL being hidden and the title showing as a link. Use double apostrophes for the article title (it is quoted text), and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). Double square brackets round the name of the paper create an internal link (a wikilink) to the relevant wikipedia article. Apostrophes must go outside the brackets. The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead.
You can use sources which are not online, but which you have found in a library or elsewhere—in which case leave out the information which is not relevant. The newspaper example above would be formatted like this:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Here is an example for a book:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Make sure you put two single quote marks round the title (to generate italics), rather than one double quote mark.
These formats are all acceptable for dates:
You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference
The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:
The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:
You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. You can see multiple use of the same refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.
The above method is simple and combines references and notes into one section. A refinement is to put the full details of the references in their own section headed "References", while the notes which apply to them appear in a separate section headed "Notes". The notes can be inserted in the main article text in an abbreviated form as seen in Harriet Arbuthnot or in a full form as in Brown Dog affair.
More information can be found at: |
Thanks for note
editThanks for the acknowledgement of help on John Wright. Not sure why but the honourary doctorate was not attached?? I'll overlook it this time, but do remind any students who don't contribute to your wikiversity then I'm willing to take their scroll secondhand (I'm sure you can scribble "Victuallers" over where their name was and initial it on behalf of the uni ....it works for me! (I'm hoping for Joint Honours in International Humour - any chance?) Victuallers (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2011
editSUNY New Paltz project
editI see that you have had an account for some time, but if you have not run a class project before you may find some advice helpful. Have a look at WP:School and university projects, and list your project there. It's also worth looking at:
Your students have set up an account at User:Meaghanplatania. Another user has already advised them of the important point that, for reasons concerned with the license terms and the attribution of contributions, Wikipedia accounts must be for single individuals only. Shared accounts are not permitted, and may be blocked at any time. Each student who wishes to edit needs to register an account.
I have put a Welcome notice on Meaghanplatania's talk page with some useful links, but it would be worth your drawing your students' attention in particular to Wikipedia's three key content policies:
They should also read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, a useful summary of the way we like to work: if you see a change that will improve the encyclopedia, be BOLD and make it, but if another user reverts it, do not re-revert which may lead to an WP:Edit war; discuss the change on the article talk page and try to reach WP:Consensus, failing which, use WP:Dispute resolution.
One way in which a Wikipedia article differs from a typical student paper is that the latter's object is often to collate established facts and draw a new conclusion from them. In Wikipedia terms this is called WP:SYNTHESIS and, as part of the No original research policy, is not allowed.
Best wishes for your project: help can be found at the WP:Help desk, or by putting {{helpme}} (with two curly brackets each side) on a talk page with a question below it.
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- A note about your project was posted on the administrators' noticeboard at WP:ANI#Student project (because there have been some disasters in this line in the past, so it is as well to have people watching), but I tell you only for information, you do not need to comment there unless you wish. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to look at User:Wordforteens's edits on that page? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mayflower edits
editGreetings, Professor. A group of your students has edited the Mayflower article and left some unfinished business. Please see this and this. Your attention or theirs is needed within a reasonable time, or the added edits may have to be removed entirely as possible copyright violations, which would be unfortunate. If you have any questions on this please ask me on my talk page. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- The "problem" has been addressed and, happily, turns out to be a non-problem. Please see my response here. I think these students deserve very high grades. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Prof. Mulready, I ran into a student/some students of yours on the talk page of this article. Please confirm to them that they need to get individual accounts; it sounds like a group with one single account. Also, if you have any questions or if there's anything I can do, ping me or drop me a line on my talk page. Stay warm. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)