Talk:King John's Palace

Query on sourcing
A quick question to see if anyone can help... The article's currently got what appear to be some long direct quotes from archaeological reports towards the end (e.g. ""The building consists of a rubble core wall at least two storeys high (Wall 2) with two fragmentary rubble core walls returning to the south-east (Wall 1 to the south-easterly, Wall 3 to the north-easterly)...At the junction of Wall 2 and Wall 3 there is a chamfer in the rubble core from the first floor to the wall head. This may be interpreted either as a doorway leading to an external gallery or staircase, or more plausibly the trace of a window reveal."), with speechmarks at the beginning and end. Does anyone know if these are actually quotes, or genuine paraphrasing? The article states that they're "summarised from" academic articles, but the speech marks make me wary here. I think they're way too long as direct quotes, but I'm hesitant to cut them down if they're really summarising the original material and the speech marks have been put in incorrectly. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard anything back on this. Additional material has since been added, but apparently from unpublished sources (e.g. Gaunt, A. & Wright, J., (2012) King John's Palace, Clipstone, Nottinghamshire - Written Scheme of Investigation for an archaeological evaluation, which I can't find anywhere); I've also been searching for other items references in the article (e.g. Wessex Archaeology, (2011) King John's Palace, Clipstone, Nottinghamshire - Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results), without any luck; again, they appear unpublished.


 * What I'm proposing to do is:
 * Summarise the existing material in long quotes.
 * Move references into standard footnotes where they appear in the main text.
 * Cut back the material which doesn't seem to have published sources backing it up.
 * Trim back the External links considerably.
 * Please shout if anyone disagrees, etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed the long (five para) quote from Rahtz again. It's worth having a look at WP:NFC - short quotations of copyright text are fine, but long quotations infringe the copyright of the original owner. I've also reverted the summarisation of the quote from Masters; the aim in an article is typically to summarise material, not simply quote verbatim. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

External links...
I've reverted the large addition of external links, which doesn't seem in line with the WP:EXTERNAL guidance (e.g. how useful is the Picnic at the Palace Success link, or the various blogs?). Perhaps some more selective additions might be worthwhile, but as a mass, they seem excessive. Happy to discuss. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * With regards to yet-to-be-published reports, they can't really be cited as references to support statements - see the guidance at WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY. Only when material has been published can then they can be used as references. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Potential copyright violation...
I've reverted again, as the text appears to have been cut and pasted directly from a copyrighted report by David Budge. This isn't permitted on the wiki. If the material was in fact written by yourselves, can you reply here? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added speech marks to what seems to be a quote, and what's called a citation needed tag. All information on the wiki needs to be verifiable from published secondary sources. In this case, you'll need to give the published source for the information (e.g. if it came from a book or article, what this was, its title or page number etc.). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)