This is an archive of past discussions with User:Leo1802. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2009
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WP:YORKS is a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 6344 last month to 6538 on June 28th). We have recently overtaken WP:LONDON which has 6318 articles. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 39 out of a total number of 1862 articles. In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 45 is just ahead of WP:GM who have 44.
Thank you and well done to all those who contributed.
Article Activity
Siward Barn was promoted to GA on May 10th Oslac of York was promoted to GA on May 18th Thomas Ferens was promoted to GA on June 6th Wilfred was promoted to FA on June 9th Ilkley was nominated for GA on June 11th Sheffield was nominated for a FAR on June 18th Peak District was nominated for GA on June 18th York was submitted for a peer review on June 21st
Member News
There are now 64 members of WikiProject Yorkshire! A warm welcome to the new members that have joined us since the June newsletter:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
To bring all other top priority articles (currently 15 with 2 at FA) to at least Good article status
To set up a weekly or monthly selected article improvement drive
To produce a regular news letter for circulation to members
Citing sources for your text
In recent months some really promising Yorkshire articles from new editors have been appearing on Wikipedia. These editors have worked hard to produce interesting and informative texts with some exquisite images. However, some of these articles have lacked any verifiable sources, an absolute must for Wikipedia articles. Additional research is usually necessary to write a good article. An article has to be verifiable and citereliable sources which ideally should include books or peer reviewed journal articles. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
Fortunately, Wikipedia provides a number of easily used tools to help with this task. Beside the Firefox add on that was mentioned last month there are a couple of toolbar options to help editors.
The first is on the default toolbar. It's the <ref>...</ref> button. This places any text that is placed between the markers in the References section on the article page.
The second handy tool is obtained by going to the my preferences section on the menu tabs at the top of the page, click GADGETS, go to Editing gadgets and check refTools. Save your options and a new CITE button is added to your editing toolbar. This little wonder, when clicked, produces options for citation templates beneath the existing toolbar. It is a fairly simple task then to copy and paste the information into the template and when you've completed as much as you can, click the Add citation button. This produces an inline citation. Of course this all depends on there being a References section on the page with either the <references/> markup or {{Reflist}} template added.
If you are in doubt about an unsourced statement, try copying the phrase or sentence and pasting it into the search box of your favourite search engine. Often this turns up a source which you can then add to the article yourself by filling in one of the citation templates on your editing toolbar. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page.
Please remember...
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis. The latest listing was created on June 18th. Here is an extract
The project has 15 top-importance articles. 8 of them, or 53.3%, are flagged for cleanup.
Articles with dead external links (Oct 2008), Articles with unsourced statements (Mar 2009)
Monitor Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Infoboxes Many of our articles would benefit from the addition of an appropriate infobox.
References Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion is always in need of attention. Please take a look and see if you can help. One small edit, such as adding a reference section and reference, to an article each session would make a big difference.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR.
Delivered July 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 00:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
