User talk:BridgenAJ

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 21:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Miscellanies, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Huon (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Did You K now for Miscellany
I've nominated this for DYK on the main page, but there are queries at Template:Did you know nominations/Miscellany. Each para is supposed to have a reference. Can you add some - I think 3 don't. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear this - good idea! I am working through the queries, mainly the lack of references to 2 paragraphs. I wonder whether the change of embedded links (to featured miscellanies on the Digital Miscellanies Index) to footnotes is enough? I found these titles by searching through New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (this lists almost 5000 verse miscellanies which were printed between 1701 and 1800), which is referred to in the article. To solve problem: could we add a note to the footnote to this work - 'All subsequent mentions of 18th century miscellanies can be sourced from this edition'?


 * Secondly, I think I may have the formatting wrong in three instances where I wanted to include both an interwiki link and an external link. This throws up a number (eg. [3]), not superscript or in line with other references, but planted awkwardly in the text. Is this normal or can it be fixed? This is what I mean:
 * (The Yorkshire Garland, 1788)

BridgenAJ (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You aren't really supposed to use "inline external links" (with the arrow) in text, only in references. Best is to put the external link as a reference, As I've done with the DMI ones, thus adding decent refs, as the pages have good text. Really the google books ones should be converted too. The [3] is the numbering of these "inline external links" in the article. Does that help? Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The reviewer is now onto this. Would it be possible to convert the other inline links, like this? I don't agree with her re the images. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was aware of this rule, but I used the inline external links strategically, to encourage readers to click and have a look at the mentioned work itself (since footnotes so often are overlooked on a cursory reading). Can we leave the links straight to google books for now, though I will change any other links to webpages which aren't the immediate work (such as portals to the work - e.g. Project Gutenburg)? As for the numbers which were being thrown out, I was just curious as they only seem to occur in those three instances where I have tried to provide an interwiki and an external link at the same time - and so look strange. Ideally the numbers could be removed, leaving only the little portal icon? But if it's really an issue then all the google links can be placed in references no problem.


 * I can't understand why the images need changing - I tried all down the RHS in sandbox and it looked like a stacking problem. As they are they break up the quite dense and fact-filled text. This method of alternating the side on which the images sit helps to distinguish which section they illustrate. BridgenAJ (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Further to links to external sites disscussion, I think having two reflists could work well - wasn't aware you could do this! Will sort these out soon. BridgenAJ (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Miscellany
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 2891 views in the 8 hours. Not bad! Thanks for helping on the review points, & well done again. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a great figure! Nice to know so many eyes have been cast over it. It was a very well chosen hook and picture. Thank you for all your help and work BridgenAJ (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)