User talk:Wordforteens
Your edits to Ingram Frizer
[edit]I was happy to see your earlier edits to this otherwise rather thin article, but the after the latest addition I see that too many assertions are made without supporting evidence; the policy of WP:no original research and WP:reliable sources explains. I'm concious that this may seem a rather uncaring response to what is a group effort obviously involving a lot of work, but integrity of the encyclopedia's content has overridden my unwillingness to pour cold water on your project. If I were to suggest that, as stage two, you reference the work from mainstream sources that subscribe to the theories you are offering would that be helpful? --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
18:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Wordforteens, if you still have some interest in the Ingram Frizer entry which you had a hand in recreating, may I invite you to take a look at the "discussion" page, where I have made a few comments on it before making any edits myself? Peter Farey (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Another suggestion, but it's a tough assignment: Of the three conspirators—if that's what they were—present at Marlowe's death it's Frizer who gets the Wikipedia article, as he was the actual killer. Poley, though, was a far more interesting individual, and he hasn't got an article. He was a tough professional spy (in modern terms less the James Bond and more the Harry Palmer) who for many years had been employed on government affairs of great importance. Furthermore, his activities are far better documented than those of Frizer and there would be less difficulty in presenting a reasonably sized article. Why not read up on MOS:BIO and WP:BETTER and give it a try? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The work you are citing is a novel: fiction can't be used as a reliable source.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Really? It was placed in the biography section of our library; that's weird. Double checking now, I see that it fiction. That's... odd. Can't even trust my own library anymore. Wordforteens (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is a popular topic, so you shouldn't have a problem finding another source. You may, though, find that the popularity has attracted some authors of greater enthusiasm than scholarship: WP:RS will help you discriminate. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Book review
[edit]Dalya Alberge's Times article was only a book review, but the work she was reviewing is a reliable source; in fact, it's already been used in the article. It seems odd to have one footnote citing a book and another citing only a reviewer's comments about the book. For consistency of style, and to make sure that you have included all the necessary parameters, you could use one of the citation templates, but this isn't essential. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
07:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)