User talk:Taxman/Featured articles with possible references problems

Sources and references

I'm not sure the guidance on sources and references is clear. But maybe I just haven't read enough yet. Also, this and the "encyclopedic standards" group might want to coordinate with the "fact-checking" group. Maurreen 16:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not, we need to come up with some consensus. And yes those two projects seem overlapping, and should at the minimum keep an eye out for each other. - Taxman 20:58, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Taxman, do you see some of these you think might be appropriate for a collaborative effort to improve their sourcing? If so, please drop a note at Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:03, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

As I mentioned there, yes any of them would be. - Taxman 20:58, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the list I don't think it is as bad as it seems. Half the problem is that people don't seem to know what standard needs to be used. In many of the articles the external links is also doubling as a reference section and internet reference to specific points are included in the text; but not duplicated in a specific references section. What we really need is for th e software to automatically create a references section which we can add to. :ChrisG 17:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well 185 of them do appear to have no references at all. There is a difference between citing a couple specific points and having references that verify the majority of the material in an article. In any case, only online references is dubious for a FA even if they were used as references, for many topics at least. But that is the point, if some have been used for references, then there is a standard way to format them, noted at Wikipedia:Cite sources in a References section. But also, I have split off the second list, because you're right, a lot of the problem with those is just with naming or other issues. - Taxman 19:04, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Doom

I have separated external links and "further reading" works from references for Doom. It still needs work though, in that although these references cover 95% of what's in the article, there are a few specific figures and facts that should probably be given appropriately specific references in the form of footnotes or specific, inlined links. I'll try to go through those soon. Fredrik | talk 01:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Great, thank you, please do. I went and formatted them according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Cite sources, taking a few liberties with the reliability of dates and authors that I can't confirm personally. I will move Doom down to a fixed section. - Taxman 06:25, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

References in text?

Just a comment - I am not sure a featured article needs a separate references section when references are mentioned in text.

I am thinking in particular of Common scold; there are likely others. Blackstone's Commentaries and legal decisions are mentioned within the body of the article, in citation form; in the case of Blackstone, the page about the book itself is linked within. Do such articles need a separate section for references? -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To be honest I feel they should. For a few reaons. 1) Citing one specific source to one or two points in an article does not make a well referenced and cited article. References should ideally be listed that cover the vast majority of the material in the article, if not all. 2). It's not that hard to format a source used inline into one in a references section to be consistent with other FA's. Even better would be to have both, the references listed at the bottom, and inline citations to them for specific points.

That specific article has excellent external links, that if you wanted to read through and verify the material in the article, then they could also be formatted as references. This is an example of an article that will be very easy to clear from the list, as I expect many others will be. - Taxman 13:16, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I moved the page

I moved this page to insert a "possible" into the title. The reason is that I noticed that two of my featured articles but neither of them have referencing problems (The listing for Humpback Whale was particularly absurd). It looks the creator of the page went through in a rush and made lots of mistakes. I found myself a bit insulted by the false insinuation that I didn't know how to write a decent article, and thus I think it was appropriate to change the page name to avoid possible further insult to other volunteer editors. Pcb21| Pete 20:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uh, hi. There was no intention to insult. In fact there are disclaimers in there that I may have missed some. But this is my page in my user space. Minimum decorum would have been to simply point the issue out to me and ask me to move the page. If there are errors, then we can simply remove those listings from the page. You found the first error in over a month of having this list up, and I don't believe there are "lots of mistakes". The rest either have problems, or have only inline citations, with no later form of making that clear. So the new title is fine, but again, please ask. - Taxman 21:45, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

British East India Company; Category:Colonial Indian companies

Taxman, be advised that the entire category, consisting of all five companies are missing references-not just the British East India Company. Others in this category: Danish East India Company; Dutch East India Company; French East India Company; and Swedish East India Company are ALL MISSING both external links as well as literary references! This should be noted on your page, and will require a great deal of work. Otto 15:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, those and 400,000 other articles in Wikipedia. The point of this list though is to highlight the FA's that don't have references. Those are supposed to be Wikipedia's best, and getting those all referenced properly first is a step along the way of promoting referencing properly for all of Wikipedia. - Taxman 15:55, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Feynman

The article on Richard Feynman has lots of references. They just don't happen to be in the standard format. --MarkSweep 08:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Coronation Street

Coronation Street now has a section of print references and video references. I'm removing it from your list. Mike H (Talking is hot) July 6, 2005 17:56 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you. I need to go through the list again, as several have been fixed since I last updated it. - Taxman ^Talk July 6, 2005 20:11 (UTC)

Yesterday (song)

It's been a year since I added a proper references section, and I thought I'd just let y'all know that it's now up to date with the latest in footnoting technology. :D Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)