This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Auckland, which aims to improve the coverage of Auckland, New Zealand, on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.AucklandWikipedia:WikiProject AucklandTemplate:WikiProject AucklandWikiProject Auckland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
The issue is not inline citations it is WP:Original research. Statements such as 'It seems that there was an earlier Auckland Weekly News (AWN), as the publisher asked the Auckland City Board to advertise with it in June 1863' sourced to [1] are not appropriate in an article. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's your interpretation of the "proprietor of the Auckland Weekly News" being mentioned in June 1863, when Papers Past says it wasn't founded until November 1863 and how would you reword the article to show the 2 apparently conflicting facts? What else is unsourced? Johnragla (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call content unsourced the template is just not the best and should probably be edited.
I'm still not clear what you think should be changed, or how. Are you thinking there should be a list of the many things it could mean, or what? If so, what's your contributions to that list? Johnragla (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that WP:OR should be replaced for information that is instead stated in secondary sources.
>Are you thinking there should be a list of the many things it could mean
Paperspast isn't the source. The source is the newspaper itself, these may be either primary or secondary depending on the context. Please read through WP:OR and take a look at the last example at WP:SYNTHTraumnovelle (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>er 130,000 images from the paper, on the Auckland Libraries website, were mostly digitised about 2010.
Is also inappropriate. The source only states 15,000. The 130,000 figure is from a search result, which is not an RS. I somewhat doubt you checked all 130,000+ images to make sure they were from the AWN and not simply mentioning/describing it in a description for some reason. It is also a press release which is not a secondary source. Most sources in an article should be secondary but this one relies mostly on primary sources.
>It was followed on 7 April 1866 by the Weekly Herald, a similar paper from the publisher of the New Zealand Herald
No where in the reference is the Auckland Weekly News mentioned. The 'it was followed' is your own interpretation/opinion not a fact supported by the reference.
Nothing in this source [2] appears to support the claim 'The paper had its origins with the Wilson and Horton families.'
>The earliest AWN in a public collection dates from 1877.
The reference here does not support that and linking to the collection itself would not support the claim, you are just assuming it is the earliest one as you could not find an earlier one.
>As well as Auckland events, AWN covered national and international news. From May 1898 AWN included a glossy centre-spread supplement with black and white photographs
Again this is your interpretation from the actual paper itself.
