Factchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs) →Copwatch: new section |
→Copwatch: reply to Factchecker |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
I have been thinking for a long time that that article needs a lot of attention, but I don't have the time or energy. Just suggesting/wondering if you might take it on as a project for yourself, maybe a complete re-write. Anyway, cheers. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 06:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC) |
I have been thinking for a long time that that article needs a lot of attention, but I don't have the time or energy. Just suggesting/wondering if you might take it on as a project for yourself, maybe a complete re-write. Anyway, cheers. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 06:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Aw, thanks, but no reason to feel stupid. I haven't had a lot of time to be around lately so I'm afraid I can't work on the copwatch article for now--although I agree it needs a lot of work. To be honest, the idea of struggling against someone over every sentence is just exhausting to me (thus I don't have a lot of experience editing contentious articles, hence the apparent newcomerness in that area). But props on your willingness to work with and invest time in showing newcomers around, that's a really good quality that's seriously lacking around here. Peace, [[user:delldot|<font color="#990066">delldot</font>]] <small>[[user talk:delldot|<font color="DarkRed">∇.</font>]]</small> 04:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:37, 14 February 2010
Review
Hi Delldot, I've "de-stubbed" this article, could you please have a look? Thanks -- Sergio (aka The Blackcat) 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat (talk • contribs)
- Sorry for the delay! I took a look and made some changes, it looks good. I was a little confused about the sentence "Scanavacca scored the whole amount for his team," does this mean that Scanavacca scored all 7 of the points the team made that game? I think we don't link dates any more, I started unlinking them, will you take out any I missed? Also, the paragraph beginning "Having scored 3,266 points in his whole club career" needs references, as does the one after it about his current position. with that latter paragraph, I'd do "as of 2010" (or whenever the source is from) instead of "currently" per WP:DATED. Good work! It was well written as usual. delldot ∇. 23:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh yes - indeed Andrea Scanavacca retired on June 2008, so the 3,266 points are not subject to change (of course his record will last until someone will break it, but as for now it's the record); and yes, against England Scanavacca scored 7 points for Italy - - thanks for spending your time for me. Sergio (aka The Blackcat) 12:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat (talk • contribs)
- Errata corrige: Scanavacca scored 3,368 points, have published a reference in the article, though I don't know whether the reference must be placed (in Italian are placed before punctuation, it seems that in English come after instead...). Sergio (aka The Blackcat) 12:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat (talk • contribs)
Phineas Gage
I haven't talked to you in a long time! I'm wondering if you can take a look at Phineas Gage which has changed a lot in the last year. I'd appreciate comments or criticisms. (I've asked Garrondo and some others as well.) Thanks! EEng (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hello again, sorry for the delay! I've just taken a look. My first concern is that there appears to be commentary, which may be a NPOV problem. For example, this part reads like an opinion piece or an essay, not an encyclopedia article: "the body of known fact about the case is remarkably small, which has allowed it to be cited, over the years, in support of various theories of the brain and mind wholly contradictory to one another. A survey of published accounts of Gage has found that even modern scientific presentations are usually greatly distorted—exaggerating and even directly contradicting the established facts." Statements like these would be better attributed to some credible source, e.g. "this expert says...". Other pieces that read like commentary include "Beyond the obvious importance..." and "a striking if relatively unimportant illustration of the difficulty of establishing even basic fact about the case". The bulleted list after the sentence starting "Yet it is unknown on what Harlow based this description" needs a reference. On a much more minor note, what is with the brackets in quotes like this one: "the taper being [twelve] inches..." That's all I've got for now! Good luck with the article, thanks for your hard work on it. delldot ∇. 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I do see that some adjustments should be made according to your concerns (it's helpful to have an outside eye -- I've been fooling with this article so long I'm going a bit crazy). That will take some days or a week or so. Re the brackets e.g. "[twelve]" in the newspaper quote and quote describing iron -- see the footnotes to each, which explain. EEng (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Copwatch
Hey, I have been meaning to respond to you on the Copwatch page for many months, actually it made me feel quite stupid because I thought I was lecturing a newcomer on the mission & pillars but really I was just nitpicking to a veteran.
I have been thinking for a long time that that article needs a lot of attention, but I don't have the time or energy. Just suggesting/wondering if you might take it on as a project for yourself, maybe a complete re-write. Anyway, cheers. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Aw, thanks, but no reason to feel stupid. I haven't had a lot of time to be around lately so I'm afraid I can't work on the copwatch article for now--although I agree it needs a lot of work. To be honest, the idea of struggling against someone over every sentence is just exhausting to me (thus I don't have a lot of experience editing contentious articles, hence the apparent newcomerness in that area). But props on your willingness to work with and invest time in showing newcomers around, that's a really good quality that's seriously lacking around here. Peace, delldot ∇. 04:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)