User talk:Greentina

Team Bison - Time to go Live?
Hey Team Bison, Your article is almost ready to go live: it just needs an intro or lead section. As soon as you do that, it can be moved. I would suggest you do that as soon as possible, because part of the exercise is to get feedback from the WP community. Please let me know when the "lead" is done and I'll see if I can get one of the online ambassadors to help with the move. --Greentina (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tina, the user Interior asked us if we wanted our article to go on live as well. We are just waiting for couple more edits to be made, but our article is mostly ready. Perhaps it's best to have it live before our group presentation, so we can edit based on the feedback from the WP community? Also, we have been discussing our article on : Sara's talk page--Chaereankim (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Tina, a lot of our sections begin with the sentence "According to (author's name)". Is it a good idea to explain the authors of the books we read? --Chaereankim (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello back! I think you should go live as soon as possible! As to beginning your sections with "According to..." I would do this sparingly, and only when you are explicitly dealing with different and potentially conflicting interpretations. Otherwise, inserting a reference to the particular author's work is all that is required. --Greentina (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Team Smoke - You're LIVE!
Your article is up: see Trail Smelter dispute. Welcome to the world! Time to add more.... --Greentina (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Now we need to see if Teck or Trail has anything to change! Mhills91 (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

sandbox mixup!
Hi Tina! Thanks for letting me know my sandbox was set up incorrectly, I think I've sorted it out now... Cdmhume (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WAC Bennett Dam Talk Page
Hi Tina, someone left a comment on the articles talk page about why high modernism and Scott are being included in the article among other issues. I'm not overly sure how to react to the comment as a whole or in part. Any suggestions? --Heatheralyse (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I might jump in, I'd say the editor has raised some valid criticisms, but is also off-base on a few others. He/she has also neglected one of our core sensibilities, namely don't bite the newbies.  Whether some of the content regarding high modernism is slightly off-topic for a general interest article is something to be discussed.  I'd engage with them on the talk page.  The Interior  (Talk) 23:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And definitely ignore their assertion that your work has not been an improvement to the article. That's just ridiculous, to be honest.  The Interior  (Talk) 02:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Heatheralyse. I agree with The Interior. I had a look at the comments and I don't like the tone, that's for sure. You don't need to respond to the tone. Instead, I would simply state that you are writing about the history of the dam, which includes looking at its social, political, and environmental impacts, and that what you write is informed by the scholarly literature on the subject. On the issue of high modernism, for instance, I'd point out that according to this literature, the Bennett dam was part of a spate of dam building around the world which was influenced by a particularly ideology of development which scholars have labelled "high modernism." The question is a good reminder that you are writing for a general audience and that means you must define your terms. The last thing I'll say is that your group will also have to address the other comment about construction, but there's lots of good info on that in the Stanley book (Voices from Two Rivers) . Does this help? --Greentina (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It does help thank you! May I quote/paraphrase your sentence "a spate of dam building around the world which was influenced by a particularly ideology of development which scholars have labelled high modernism"?--Heatheralyse (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to ask, but of course. In general, I'd say that you and your team need to make sure you cover the basic information. Remember that this is an encyclopedia article. You need to write as if the person reading knows NOTHING at all about your subject. That means you have to cover a lot of basic factual information and you need to make sure you get that info right. --Greentina (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding article length
Hello,

One of your students commented that you requested a specific article length for the assignment, and that they went over it (Talk:History of bison conservation in Canada). I don't know if you were planning to, but may I suggest that you not penalize them for that? Content removal to cut down length is contrary to Wikipedia's policies, besides depriving readers of possibly important information.

Thank you. Inverse Hypercube (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Trip out to UBC
That was really neat, thanks for inviting me. I heard William Cronon's name come up and thought of this piece in our in-house newspaper - Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-06/In the news. The Interior (Talk) 21:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My experience with Wikipedia in the Classroom
I wrote a long blog about this that was posted at the NiCHE website (Network in Canadian History and the Environment). All of you are mentioned and so I thought you might like to see it: Wikipedia in the Classroom. Thanks again for your help with my class! --Greentina (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)