User talk:NigelCovington85/sandbox

Comments

 * I am assuming that the changes are meant to be integrated within the existing article. Is that right?
 * Question - For the "type of news" in the infobox. For instance, for The Onion, the type is "Parody news organization". Would that be appropriate.
 * Citations need to be inserted inline - and wikipedia is not a valid or secondary source, so I'll remove that one. Regarding other sources, it's best to use news sources. There are some that I'm not sure about, like SplitSider. I think it would be good to find a better source - or post something on the Reliable sources/noticeboard about whether this can be used as a source.
 * I used a template for the citations I inserted because all that's needed is to complete the empty fields, where applicable.
 * Wikilinks are important additions to link to other articles, but not for common words, countries. I inserted a couple as an example.
 * Magazines, newspapers, journals, and book titles should be in italics.
 * Since "Fake News / Hoaxes" wasn't implemented, is this needed for an encyclopedia article?
 * Sections should just have the first word capitalized, unless the title is a proper noun.

... that's a start.

-- CaroleHenson (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear CaroleHenson,

First I want to thank you for reviewing my submission regarding the National Report. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NigelCovington85/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=652713493

After talking with our publisher concerning changes to the National Report's Wikipedia page we decided to approach this from a new angle. I will forward the essence of our exchange in order to keep him in the loop. There are two changes we would like to see.


 * 1) First, we strongly object to the label "Fake News." You suggested "Parody news organization" as cited from The Onion page. Yes that is acceptable to us.
 * 2) Second, we'd like to see the "Paul Horner" box currently on the NR page removed and replaced with one that provides a couple of selected articles written by all of our contributors which would include Paul Horner's work as well.

I do not know who put the Paul Horner box on the NR page or why. Mr. Horner was one of a dozen writers who contributed to the site but he no longer works for us.

I apologize for the sudden change but I've been trying to correct a number of inaccuracies we found when we became aware of the Wikipedia page in December. All but the two I've mentioned have already been changed.

Unfortunately an ongoing health problem I've been dealing with for several years this month took a turn for the worst leaving me exhausted and bedridden. I simply cannot pursue this any further. With the exception of the two changes mentioned above the NR page is fine as is.

Sincerely,

Nigel Covington Editor-in-Chief National ReportNigelCovington85 (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * It's unusual to remove sourced material from an article, but I'll take a look at this.
 * I'm sorry to hear about your poor health. I hope that you are able to recuperate and feel better.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear about your poor health. I hope that you are able to recuperate and feel better.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Rest of the content
You've already put so much work into this - it won't take too much more to match up the citations to the content and do some formatting. I'm working on:
 * Intro✅, plus clarified disclaimer notice + info from the article about Facebook satire tag, since that's relevant
 * Overview - not seeing sources for this
 * Business model and confirmation bias - some of the sources are Wikipedia, but I'll look for content with useable sources - there's not really much that can be taken from this section
 * History✅

and will skip the Fake News / Hoaxes section, per my comment - since it wasn't implemented.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The History section was stripped of cited material and left with cn tags. So, that wasn't too successful. Since the editor is determined to edit war rather than look at the changes, it seems wise to let this cool down and step away. Feel better!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)