Talk:Tea production in Sri Lanka/Archive 1

Sources to expand this into a good article

 * Early history
 * Early history
 * A collection of articles on Sri Lankan tea
 * History of Ceylon Tea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimuthlk (talk • contribs) 08:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * History
 * History
 * History **Study of workforce
 * A timeline
 * Pure Ceylon Tea
 * Ceylon Tea Suppliers
 * Ceylon Tea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.7.244 (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BBC -sales
 * FAO -sales
 * Economic Times -production
 * BBC - Protectionism
 * Sunday Times- Opportunities and challenges
 * CNN-Combining wine
 * A brief history
 * History
 * Tea factories
 * Tea cultivation
 * Ceylon Black Tea
 * Daily Mirror-2009 slump
 * I recommend reading Wikipedia's Guidelines for Reliable Sources. Most of these examples you give are self-published sources and fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.  To everyone else, I would not recommend adding these sources.  Instead, read the guidelines and locate your own sources--with a preference for published print sources, scholarly articles (try google scholar) and lastly, reputable news sources (try google news).  Cazort (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a better pictures of Black Ceylon tea, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ceylon_tea_Leafs.JPG i think we should use this one, it looks better, or we could add this one to the article. HeroidShehu (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference Cleanup - Citation Spam
I am cleaning up the references. There seems to be a lot of WP:CITESPAM. In particular, linking to a tea company website or a travel website is generally not acceptable as these are self-published sources. See WP:RS. A possible exception would be the rare cases where there are verifiable reasons to trust the authority of the website in question. Also, because of the citation spam problem, in general, when you remove a questionable source, it's worth typing it into Wikipedia's source box and removing it from other articles as well, assuming it's not a marginal / controversial decision to remove it. The stuff I'm removing all looks particularly egregious in its violation of WP:RS. Cazort (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Misleading References
There are many misleading or spam references in this article. --HK Arun (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)