Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Ann Steinhagen

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Orlady (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ruth Ann Steinhagen[edit]

(
)
  • Reviewed: William Beale (aviator)
  • Comment: QPQ not required by main expander, but I did one anyway when I saw the request that I nom this for him.PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

5x expanded by Dreadstar (talk), Moonriddengirl (talk). Nominated by PumpkinSky (talk) at 23:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

a resolved issue

I like this article and want to see it main paged.

However, there's a serious problem with this article, now. 

<ref name="therecord">
{{cite news|
| first = Bill
| last = Pennington
| title = The Real Roy Hobbs - The Natural Facts
| work = The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
| date = June 14, 1992
| accessdate = July 23, 2012
| url = http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-22636325.html
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160409182206/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-22636325.html
| url-status = dead
| archive-date = April 9, 2016
}}
</ref>

and 

<ref name="therecord">
{{cite news
| first= Bob
| last = Hertzel
| date = May 4, 1993
| title = Danger: When fans become fanatical
| work = The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
| url = http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-22666990.html| archive-url = https://archive.today/20130125040444/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-22666990.html| url-status = dead| archive-date = January 25, 2013}}
</ref>

MRG added a lot, but the above two refs have the same name; all are being associated with the Pennington piece and the Hertzel one is not showing at all. This is why named refs suck, and why things should be citing authors, not things like the paper they wrote in.

I will ping MRG about this, and see what I can do. The source and bits sourced to them will need review and association with the correct source.

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've split them, however it needs review with access to the paywall sources. My rationale for this split was the order that the sources were added. As of here, "Hertzel 1993" was the only source from The Record in use, so it was clear enough. The other uses were added here and this resulted in "Hertzel 1993" being subsumed by "Pennington 1992". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

So sorry! I was both pinched for time and working with a ref style that is, honestly, unusual to me. :) I do harvard or inline, but I've never done the list at the bottom-or at least seldom enough in the years I've been editing not to remember having done so. I was trying to use the naming convention of publication titles rather than what I usually use, either author or some keyword from the title. Anyway, I have gone back to the source to make sure the "record" is straight. :D You did a grand job fixing my mess. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That WP:LDR. It's useful when most of the cites are to online sources; unpaginated sources, really. With harv refs the full body is usually at the bottom (although you can link to them in LDR or even inline). Inline really should be deprecated, as it's simply a holdover from the earliest version of mw:cite.php (that implements ref tags). It was coded to require refs be inline, and defined above any subsequent re-uses. Things have changed; we can do better. Inline cites are a horrible mess... </rant>
I take it you're happy with how the footnotes not associate with the two sources. I'll rename the other one to alos refer to the author. I do see that the name-per-work was going already when you got there. Anyway, I mostly fix things to use the {{sfn}} form of harv, which is usually author-year-page (see {{sfnRef}} for how to customise). Did I get on a rant, again? Terima kasih.  Br'erRabbit  (fka Jack, Alarbus, 40 others;) 13:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Meets all the criteria. Well-written, sourced, neutral, long enough, hook is cited, no obvious copyright violations. Good to go. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ruth_Ann_Steinhagen&oldid=1020159995"