Talk:Tokai Arboretum

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the text used is my own. I simply have the text on another website as well. We are in the process of working on this article as a team, and will refine the content in the coming days -or delete the info from our other webpage) --Arebelo (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Arebelo: please read WP:COPYVIO; unless you have officially granted the Wikimedia Foundation the right to use your text, it remains a copyright violation and subject to deletion. Also, you should probably take a look at WP:COI.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Thank you. I'm (relatively) new to this and some things are very strange to me. But I will go and officially fill out the "copyright permissions". Can the deletion be stalled for a few days until I get to this please? Also, I have no conflict of interest -or any interest in the matter actually. But thank you for the link.Arebelo (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: We have tried to follow wikipedia's instructions for copyright, and have made our content available for use following cc-by-sa 4.0 rules. Could we please request to have the Tokai Park and Tokai Arboretum pages reinstated? If there are any parts of the text that wikipedia has an issue with, could you please just flag these, and we can rewrite them if need be. But I cannot do a thing with this page being marked for deletion. If there is something I still need to do, but have missed, could you please let me know? Kind regards, Arebelo (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the author of the source article has released it under CC-by-sa 3.0 which is mentioned at the bottom of the source article, which also states that it was originally written to be a Wikipedia article. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Inline referencing

Arebelo, I have done a bit of cleanup, but I do not have access to your sources. Please, as far as reasonably practicable, cite each paragraph from the relevant source on your list. To do that, copy the <ref name="whatever"> tag and paste it at a place where that source is to be the reference. You will need to add a slash just before the closing "greater than" sign - e.g. <ref name="whatever" /> . Once this has been done with each of the sources, delete it from the sources section and uncomment it in the references section. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

There are problems with both the sources and the content. Regarding the sources:

• "Our Green Heritage" apparently is this book which doesn't mention Tokai Arboretum.
• I could only find the 1968 edition of the Suid-Afrikaanse biografiese woordeboek; it does not mention Tokai Arboretum and says nothing of relevance about Tokai in general. I woud be surprised if the 1977 edition has more to say about the arboretum.
• "Status of Forestry Arboreta" seems unknown outside the context of Tokai, where some other works by related people cite it. It's unknown to WorldCat. If it's not a book, we'd need more bibliographical details to be able to locate it.
• The "Standard Encyclopaedia of S.A." covers Tokai in volume 10 which doesn't mention an arboretum.
• "Under the Elephant's Eye" presumably is Under Elephant's Eye, a newsetter by the Tokai Residents' Association. The Friends of Tokai Forest are known to publish in that newsletter. I don't think such a newsletter is a reliable source, and it seems nigh-impossible to locate the specific edition cited in this article.

So the only work in the "Sources" section that is identifiable and possibly mentions Tokai Arboretum doesn't appear to be reliable. Regarding the content:

• The tone of the article is promotional ("spectacular stands of Eucalypts", "possibly the finest", "unsurpassed arboreal heritage" and so on).
• There is content that clearly isn't based on any of the cited sources, for example "as of late 2018" when the most recent source is from 2015 (or possibly even earlier, depending on when that work actually was written).
• Much of the article consists of what should be done; none of that seems sourced or attributed to a person or institution who thinks that's what should be done. COI issues don't help.
• It's rather full of spelling and grammar errors. Those could be fixed, but as long as the sources are unclear or absent, fixing such issues in text that likely needs to be rewritten or removed is wasted effort.

For now I'll remove the "vision" and the "should" stuff; those have no place in an encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Peter (Southwood). This week is going to be really busy for me, but I will have a look at it asap and change it following your recommendations. Now that I understand that I can use scientific references, nothing is going to hold us back! We will make sure that we put in some excellent sources. Huon Thank you also for the time that you have invested. I will go through these points carefully and make sure to take your advice. Arebelo (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Untagged

I have untagged following discussions and improvements to the article. If anyone feels the need to retag, please ping me to discuss. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Refs for material in the lead

Arebelo. The lead does not need referencing of material that is referenced in the body of the article, as the lead is supposed to be an executive summary of the rest of the article. However the lead of this article includes material not mentioned elsewhere. There are two ways to fix this. Either all material in the lead should be referenced elsewhere in the article, or the unreferenced material can be referenced in the lead. The former is preferred for compliance with the manual of style, but either or both are acceptable.