User talk:Doukafter

Welcome!
Hello Doukafter, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi
I don't have time to address it now, but your recent edits were somewhat retrograde, unfortunately. You deleted refs, for example, from sentences to which they were attached. You also made two paras in the lede into an over-long single para. I'll seek to address when I have a moment, but not that you are a new editor, so wanted to leave word here as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but at the same time, I think that the controversy involving Cordoba House was a single idea and should be in a single paragraph with proper lead sentence. It struck me that having the refs at the end of the paragraph of such moderate length would lead to greater cohesion for it. It is the second paragraph of the lead, so I do not expect that it has lost prominence for the reader.--Doukafter (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your thoughts. But when you separate the refs from what they support, a reader does not know where the support lies.  This problem is even greater as future edits take place.  When the over-long paragraph is split into two by a future editor (such as me), the risk is that the refs that formerly were at the end of sentences are now not even in the same paragraph.


 * As to the lede, four paras is fine for an article of this size. And the controversy is a large part of the article, so two paras for it is sensible.  The size of the large para is simply unwieldy, and not reader friendly.  There is a fair amount of research out there as to how long sentences, and long paras, reduce reader understanding and ability to remember what they just read.  (I'm always editing myself to shorten my sentences and paras, as a result).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes, per the above, adding some additional cites as well.

Also, this may help you. It is an automated way to get 80 per cent of the way towards making raw refs into citations -- see Reflinks at http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Main_Page. You have to download it, and then click on the download to run it as to any specific article. While it is not perfect, it gets you much of the way there, and is a good first step. If you in contrast put in the limited info (as you have, in good faith), the bot does not run on that ref, and it remains without other info (such as author, date) that is preferably in a cite. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)