Talk:Petr Vaníček

A general biographic reference, or ubiquitous references to the same source?
Hi,

A few days ago you did an overhaul of the references of this article, including deleating some categories as "unref". However, as so often is the case, almost all facts actually were referenced, but not in the same sentences as the facts you questioned. In this case, they were found in the only source I looked at, namely, the relatively late placed one with a title indicating that it indeed would contain 'classical' biographic information, i. e., the one titled Biographical Database entry for Petr Vaníček, Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences (SVU). (You have not questioned the validity of that source.) I found verification of everything except one item there; although I did have to use common sense and some very elementary geographical knowledge and counting in a couple of cases. (This biographical source mentions his two marriages, and the fact that he had three children in the first one, named Filip, Štěpán, and Anna. It does not explicitly state that two of these were sons and the last one a daughter.  Likewise, it does not say anything explicitly about the number of continents in which he has worked, but it enumerates places in U.K., Sweden, U.S., Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Iran, and Australia.)  The exception is the statement that he was the first Canadian to receive that Humboldt award. (The reward itsel, and the fact that he was a Canadian when he got it is clear from the source, but not that no other Canadian had got it earlier.)

Since you insisted on demanding separate references, I'll replace all your cn's with repeated references to that obvious main biographic reference, and revert your deletion of categories; but cn the single fact not found there. (Actually, I think this way of repeating references clutters the text a bit; but IMHO the article will not suffer much from it.) However, I'm a little disappointed that you didn't do this check yourself. I looked a bit at your recent edits, and got a general impression that you are an experienced editor and in general are taking some care when you revise articles. In this case, when the matter was to transform a general biographic reference to repeated reference copies for the different facts, I don't think you were as careful.

Regards, JoergenB (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I somehow got an impression that these societies to not have fellowship. My bad. As for cn tags, I placed them for facts I felt in need of confirmation. Of course, you don't have to put a ref instead of very 'cn'. One ref per paragraph is enoug. - Altenmann >talk 00:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_7 (that's how I "drive-by edited" this article :-). - Altenmann >talk 03:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)