User talk:Climie.ca/Sandbox/WWI

To do list

1: Rewrite Lead
2: Condense "Causes of War" section, balance focus of that section
3: Reorganize the "course of the war" section to be more in line with that of WWII
4: Complete rewrite of aftermath to be more in line with guidelines and history
5: Translate to WWI page
6: Nominate for GA
7: Get through PR and ACR.
8: Eventual FAC.
Cam ^(Chat) 00:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help on any of the navy-related issues (i.e. don't want to write them ;)), feel free to ping away. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Cam, a little more caution and consultation in the rollout process. The existing text is the product of years of editing and talk-page argumentation. It is one of the most-visited articles on WP and is a Vital Article. We want to keep the discussion on a positive, constructive note. What I would recommend is that before rolling out a version you announce a day or two ahead that it's ready for comments.
Specific to this version:
A lede should reflect content elsewhere in the article, not introducing new points. Accordingly it should not need any refs that aren't already used elsewhere.
Please maintain the <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|Jones|Klein|2009|pp=123-7, 456-61}}</ref> scheme we've used. It provides hotlinks, first to the note and thence to the reference.
The use of "revenge" has been contentious. It should be properly sourced or else avoided. "Retribution" might be less problematic.
I would lose the "notably the Russian and German empires", it falsely implies the other belligerants were not engaging their industrial capacities.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to help?

I hoped to make a constructive contribution by tweaking the posted reference citations -- in each instance adding

link to the GoogleBooks page for each source
link to Wikipedia articles about the publisher or to other on-line information
ISBNs
OCLC

I did not use the convenient citation template, in part because I was a bit uncertain how best to format multiple publishers, multiple editions, etc.

Although this is only a minor contribution, I would hope you'll construe it as an encouraging gesture. The ~~STRIKE-OUT~~ format is conventionally used by some to indicate the difference between older and newer versions of evolving text. I wonder if, perhaps, this editing convention might be seen as useful in your unique edition context? --Tenmei (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did the harvnb/citation work on those.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

By June 2009: Have draft completed By July 2009: GA By August 2009: Peer Reviewed By September 2009: Copyedit & ACR - gradual tweaking to follow By December 2009: FA

Citing while writing

It is very much easier to keep track of sources used by adding them as-you-go rather than after the fact. Please, at least put in is the (Smith & Jones, 1987, pp. 12-14) that will allow someone else to work up the full citatuion. If there's no record where an assertion came from, it's back to hunting for a supporting source for each line. That becomes a grossly inefficient way to work. Thanks.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I normally would, but my books were in the other room at the time, and it was sort of a "spur of the moment" thing. My apologies. Cam ^(Chat) 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. Just trying to head it off at the pass :-) LeadSongDog (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]