Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Wolf: A Journey Home/archive1

Uncited comments
Moved from main FAC page. Steve T • C
 * Hi Charles. Just on that point about uncited quotes, I think the guideline is ambiguous, as it doesn't cover quotes that might appear in the middle of a block of text that's all from the same source. Many editors are happy with the one cite at the end of the text. However, having seen your bringing this up at a few FACs recently, I opened a discussion earlier on to get clarification. Best, Steve  T • C 14:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is fine with me. :) I have had the same point raised in FACs of my own in the past, which is why I adopted by current understanding of the guideline. It seems logical to put it after each sentence to me, incase one should be removed or moved, and the citation moved with it, I have seen alot of article get their citations out of whack because of that. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 14:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True, it can get out of whack,[1] but that stands whether it's a quote or a paraphrase.[1] The solution would be to have inline citations at the end of every statement,[1] regardless of whether or not it contains a direct quote.[1] Consensus appears to favour not doing that, however.[1] I'd agree with that,[1] as it does make the text quite messy.[1] As in many articles, there is an element of trust at work,[1] and with the implication that an inline citation covers everything that comes before it,[1] right up to the previous cite,[1] a statement can be just as easily verified from one at the end of a block of text as one in the middle.[1] All the best,[1] Steve  T • C 15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with your observations. I think some thoughts are easier to follow and more obviously connected and from a single source, allowing a cite to go at the end of the paragraph. I think that is not always the case though, and WP:CITE lays out which items should always have a citations immediately following them, regardless of their placement. Quotes, statistics, figures, among other things fall into that category currently. I do believe that AGF also comes into play, so I only point out instances that appear to be in direct conflict with the MOS, unless I have access to the sources myself and can confirm their contents. This is getting a bit off topic for this page, but really I believe that to be the primary fallacy of the FAC review process - the actual sources are rarely if ever checked, we rely almost totally on AGF that editors are using sources properly. A person has to be personally familiarly with a subject to be able to pick up inaccuracies and errors without access to sources. lol Anyway. I'd be glad to participate in the discussion and will leave a comment there. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)