User talk:Mgblakes

Talkback
 Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 00:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Link to RFF: Requests_for_feedback/2011_August_30  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 21:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been copy-editing the article, to Wiki style standards, found here: WP:MOS. Whilst doing so, I've come across a lot of what wiki calls "weasel words", or basically ambiguous terms - "probably born in" "likely", "perhaps" - and editorialised terms like - "the evidence suggests". I'm not deeply into wiki policies, despite linking people to them - mostly through necessity - but you need to run through the article and give it a more objective tone in a few places, just to help it meet wiki standards closer. There is a page here called "words to watch" WP:W2W which covers the type of things to avoid that make an article less biased - not rules as such, just guidelines. That should make the information less narrative, more encyclopedic which is what wiki aims for.

I would also advise you move the top 2 paragraphs into a section, them write a short 2 or 3 sentence lead, something like:

Parker H. French (born date – death date) was ............... summarise his character (nationality, career) and life (notable achievements) in a few brief sentences, touching on a few important things only, no wikilinks or citations needed, nothing not in the main sections.

Then the contents will box appear automatically and then it goes into the article more comfortably for the casual reader.

Thanks,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 22:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have revised the opening as you recommended, at least I hope the new effort works okay. As for the "weasel words" I'd like to be authoritative but it is difficult. Since no one really knows for sure when French was born and no one has any idea when he died, I can't just list dates. What I've done is incorporate some sources into the text and elaborated in footnotes. This enabled me to avoid "probably," "perhaps," and so on, for the most part. I've done some further editing and I have a small change or two yet to make, checking a source.

Again, thanks you for all this greatly needed help.

Mgblakes (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I am done tinkering with Parker French piece until further suggestions are made.

Mgblakes (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, not quite. I can't get the Ned McGowan link to work. There is a page "Ned McGowan (lawyer)" but I'm doing something wrong on the redirect.

Mgblakes (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the McGowan link, and the Wm. Walker link which had the same problem. I have done a little more editing. I wonder if I should edit the Walker page to include a reference to French?

Mgblakes (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Your message at Requests for feedback
 Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 01:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 23:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Parker article
Hi Mgblakes,

It is good to see that your article is going well, and that you are enjoying creating it. Having given a few RFF responses to the article, you may have noticed that there not a lot of volunteers currently working through the RFF lists to give feedback. As a result most of your feedback has come from myself only, giving little in the way of a wide-range of opinions and suggestions. Depending on how far you want to develop the article, you might want to consider requesting a Peer Review, and see if a few more people chip-in and give advice beyond what I've given. I do think the article has come a long way. If you've never tried for yourself, take a look at the article as it stands today, and compare if with your first revision found here and you will probably by surprised just how far the article has come, in just under a month. It is articles like this, created by eager contributors such as yourself that can get promoted to higher Wiki standards. Whilst I am unsure what WikiProject the article may come under, perhaps WP:History, where you can aim to get the article promoted to A-class, for example. There is also the project-wide Good Article grade, and I'm sure one of the reviewers there might be able to give a few thoughts and help it meet GA criteria there. I suppose such ratings give a stronger sense of achievement.

I wrote a guidance essay on feedback and reviews which explains the options available, should you consider it, which can be found here: User:MarcusBritish/Feedback advice. If you still require basic feedback in the meantime, before taking it further, I'm happy to provide it.

Regards,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 14:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again,

Regarding this edit - I would advise against using the "(see note #)" bits in the note, as should another editor come along and decide to add or remove citations the numbering of those notes will automatically change, making that note not make sense, and you probably don't want to be manually checking it day in, day out, just in case it does. If the names in the note are already ref'd in the main prose of the article, I'd suggest don't bother pointing them out, you've already done your part by citing them once where it counts, which is acceptable.

Hope that helps,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 19:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)