User talk:Kmac1986/sandbox

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Request

Advice for improving my page is very welcome here!Kmac1986 (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

By Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects". Because it is a summary, and because good article standards suggest it should be restated with expanded articulation within the body, it is not necessary to produce inline citations within the lead. This only if in fact it is restated in the body and there a reference provided. This guideline has other insight as well so if you haven't considered it, perhaps it has some helpful information. Based on your efforts so far, I think we should focus on good article standards because it seems this article has that potential. My76 Strat 01:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will have a look at that and will move the citations into the article. I was only copying the format I saw on some other pages, but clearly I should have just read the Style Guide instead.Kmac1986 (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely understandable and it is appropriate to glean ideas from examples of other articles. To be sure, it is more conducive when citing comparisons to articles rated GA or better. In many cases it serves counter productive to cite bad examples from unassessed articles. Consider WP:OTHERSTUFF for example. One aspect of your "preferences" can help you know the rating of the article you are previewing. If you are interested, under 'My preferences', choose 'Gadgets' and check the box for 'Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article'. This is a feature I use for exactly this purpose. My76 Strat 16:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the citations from the lead. I consider the lead to be a decent introduction to the topic as I present it in the article. However I note that according to Wikipedia I should have a longer introduction given that the page is 30,000 characters.Kmac1986 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

endash emdash and non breaking spaces

With this edit I inserted a few examples of the different dashes used. This is another area you can improve towards good article class. My76 Strat 01:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia interlinks

This sentence: "Ward was a Lieutenant General when he served in this capacity, from March through December 2005", contains the first occurrence of Lieutenant General. It is here where the wikilink for Lieutenant General should be placed. And then it should not be again linked, which would be over linking. This sentence from your article: "This assignment coincides with his promotion to a three-star rank of Lieutenant General from the rank of Major General, effective October 7, 2010" shows where in fact you linked the term. Try to ensure the interlinks are the first occurrences. Cheers. My76 Strat 01:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional review shows that the actual first occurrence is in the form Lt. Gen. here "In March 2005, the Ward Mission was dispatched, headed by Lt. Gen. Kip Ward" where the term first appears. It should be spelled out, the abbreviation defined and thereafter used just as you do the acronyms. And I think LTG is also correct. So if you want to interlink the term and later use acronyms it might better be shown as: "In March 2005, the Ward Mission was dispatched, headed by Lieutenant General (LTG) Kip Ward". And thereafter use LTG. or if you prefer "In March 2005, the Ward Mission was dispatched, headed by Lieutenant General (Lt. Gen.) Kip Ward". Cheers.My76 Strat 02:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I definitely have lots to improve with the interlinks. Also I have several questions regarding this. *How do I link to a different part of my article, or is that not recommended? *With regard to the military ranking, is it standard to use the rank they were at at the time of the historical event? Lt. General Kip Ward is now a General, for instance. *What gets interlinked? I'm sure I just haven't read the WP page on the subject yet. It's a lot to keep up with.Kmac1986 (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible and often appropriate to link within an article. This is specifically covered here and the rest of the page has additional insight as well. Regards My76 Strat 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have erred in the above advice. I have conferred with other experienced editors and reached an emerging consensus that linking within an article is considered not best practice. Yes it can be done, but perhaps it is inadvisable. In fact this guideline clearly enunciates a link as "...giving readers one-click access to other Wikipedia pages, other Wikimedia projects and external websites", with deference given to other pages. So maybe we should avoid linking within the article. My76 Strat 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Do you happen to know if it is appropriate to mention other parts of the article without a link (i.e. "See above") or is that also not advisable? I mean, they do it even in major research publications so you can refer to the specific section, but I am not sure if that is against Wikipedia's style or not.Kmac1986 (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not prohibited to draw attention to a section within the article if it suits your needs. This article for example: G-flat major shows an example of such. I haven't yet found specific policy in this regard but if I do I'll share it with you. For now I think it is fair to consider it plausible. My76 Strat 04:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another observation is that the table of contents of every article by template configuration links to the sections within the article. This provides clue as well. My76 Strat 06:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article consistency

In many circumstances, you have flexibility to choose a particular style over another based on preference. What is required is consistency with regard to the chosen style. For example you introduce this acronym: "mainly organized by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)", as such but later use C.I.A. Consider this and this for example. In another example, you introduce in this sentence: "...the Presidential Guard with the intent to train, equip, and garrison 10 NSF battalions...", positive use of a serial comma. Later in the article, this sentence "The Palestinians were showered with advanced radio communications and X-ray equipment, bomb detection scanners, computers, vehicles and other equipment" omits the serial comma. This guideline has more on the topic. My76 Strat 15:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am seeing occurrences of both US and U.S. within the article. It's all about consistency from this perspective. Also this guideline covers more on abbreviations in general. My76 Strat 16:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, If ever there is a conflict in style preference, Wikipedia policy is to show deference to the first occurrence of such style as a choice. So for example if another editor comes along who dislikes serial commas, and they edit to remove them, The style of the first attribution will prevail. I have seen this happen with AD and CE for example. My76 Strat 17:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I realized that I was being inconsistent. I hope to look over it once I finish the last bits of writing so that I can be sure to link the first instances only, standardize abbreviations, standardize reference style, etc.Kmac1986 (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]