User talk:Walter H Scott

Ways to improve Lewis Pinhorn Wood
Hi, I'm The Cosmos Master. Walter H Scott, thanks for creating Lewis Pinhorn Wood!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. There is no references and the page should be split into sections.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. The Cosmos Master (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And all the references are currently bare URLs, which makes them subject to 'link rot' - web addresses frequently change, and with no more information to go by, they frequently break. Could you please dress them up in a citation template, like this (don't use the nowiki tags):

For example:

October 2013
Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Bear Grylls, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Lewis Pinhorn Wood needs citations, and at Chiswick
Hi, I see you've just added a mention of Wood at Chiswick. Unfortunately the paragraph does not have a citation, and visiting his article I couldn't find one there either. You may not know that we had quite a drive to make sure that only verifiable, i.e. cited and checked facts, were added about inhabitants of Chiswick as we were getting quite a bit of unencyclopaedic content (specially on living people), so quite a bit of strictness was necessary. Obviously we don't want to slip back into that state, so I'd be grateful if you could add a reference to a reliable source for each of the facts mentioned - I'll see if I can help. Otherwise we'll have to remove the mention. Much the same should go for Wood's article, really. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick chap, fair point - so I've referenced wood's address back to 1901 census records on ancestry.com; ditto on the his own page - you OK with that? Walter H Scott (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ancestry.com is not a reliable source, though the census records are; however, a census date (every 10 years, like 1901, 1911) does not show which years someone lived somewhere, which is the currently uncited fact. I am not sure where the dates given may have come from, which is the problem - it looks like research; even census data must be used with care as the census too is essentially a primary research source. If we are going to cite a census, then it must be done properly, i.e. we say 1911 Census, page XXX, district YYY, ref ZZZ, date. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Uncited, undated, unlocated works at Lewis Pinhorn Wood
Hi, I don't wish to be upsetting, but I'm not sure I can see the benefit of creating an unverifiable list of indefinite size that conveys nothing other than 'here is a long list of names of paintings'. The merit of a list of works is that it enables people to check, view and go to see the works named, and to compare them by period. Therefore, each work should have


 * a citation (full reference)
 * year
 * museum or gallery where work is located.

The existence of wikilinks to images on WP (they should be on Commons actually) does not remove the need for these data.

I'm inclined to remove all works which don't meet these criteria: Wikipedia is "not a catalogue". Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)