User:Cliff smith/Sandbox

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article |} For further information on factual accuracy and proper referencing, see Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citation templates, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. What makes an article a featured article? There is not one single answer to this question: There are multiple elements – outlined in the featured article criteria – that make an article featured. Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate prose that is neutral, stable (not frequently changed), and is not inordinate in length is a large part of a featured article. Appropriate images with proper captions are another element. It also, of course, has to meet the style standards of Wikipedia. But there is one element that is present in all of the above. This element makes prose factually accurate, which is a major part of a good encyclopedia; this element can verify how appropriate an image is in an article and can contribute to a caption; this element is also one of the most salient stylistic aspects of an article. This element is properly formatted citiations and references to reliable sources. Herein, how to get properly formatted citations and references to reliable sources – basically, how to satisfy criteria 1c and 2c – is discussed. While reliable sources to make an article factually accurate are of the utmost importance, the manner in which they are presented is important as well. More than one style, albeit with little contrast, is accepted on Wikipedia, drawn from the Chicago Manual of Style, the The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, the The MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, and other such English style format texts. The author's name, the title of the work, the publisher, the location of the publisher, and the year of publication are all necessary in a source's full citation; and the ISBN code can be included as well. The author's surname and the page or pages in that author's work from which information was used are necessary in an inline citation (at the end of a sentence or following a mid-sentence punctuation). This is subject to some variation as well since an abbreviation of the title, or the year of publication, could be included between the surname and page number(s) in the event that a cited author produced more than one work that was cited in the article. Near the end of an article, a "References" section displays the sources which were used in the article. In some cases, a "Notes" section containing only inline citations preceeds a "References" section containing only full citations. Criteria 1c and 2c Proper referencing with inline citations is specifically addressed in criteria 1c and 2c of the featured article criteria: 1c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate. 2c) consistently formatted inline citations, using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). Basically, put together, this says that the content of an article must come from reliable sources which must be cited using proper formatting. (The only thing that does not need referencing is common knowledge.) According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, in regards to criterion 1c specifically, “ Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ” More information on getting reliable information is available at Wikipedia:Verifiability, part of which discusses burden of evidence: “ The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. ” Getting references Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange While there are some places on the Internet that are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, there are many that are not. Here are some popular Internet places, for lack of a better word, that are not reliable sources: YouTube, IRC, MySpace, IMDB, and other Wikis. Reliable internet sources tend to be news websites, official websites related to an article's subject, and online copies of journals and books. Printed texts, in general, like books and journals, tend to be more reliable. Google Book Search is an excellent way to find books that are suitable for being cited sources on Wikipedia. (Unfortunately, many book search results lack the full text of a book.) Your local library is a great place to find other text sources as well. Also, subject-relevant documentaries on video are usually good sources. Refining references Why, and when, citations are necessary Wikipedia:Citing sources is the specific branch of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style that directly addresses FA criterion 2c. Now, in the case that you are curious as to why each and every source should be cited, Citing sources tells you. Put in a nutshell, it is basically this: To keep Wikipedia reliable and credible, to credit a source for its material and to avoid claims of plagiarism, to keep Wikipedia free of original research, and to reduce the chance of edit wars or other disputes. (Just because it is summed up here does not mean that you should not still read through Citing sources yourself.) The full citation A full citation includes all of the relevant information of a source so that if somebody else wanted to check out that source, they would be able to do so with ease. Wikipedia:Citation templates is full of templates that make properly displaying this information easy. All one need do is plug in the necessary information and, as long as the template is properly formatted, it will display it in proper style. (Wikipedia:Citation templates has multiple examples of each template, but I’ll humor you since there’s no way you could possibly want to stop reading this.) This is an example of the citation template {{cite book}}, followed by an example of the citation template {{cite journal}}. {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} The blank template The template with relevant information plugged in What the template produces {{cite book | last= | first= | title= | year= | publisher= | location= | isbn= }} {{cite book | last= Watson | first= Peter | title= The Modern Mind: An intellectual history of the 20th century | year= [[2002]] | publisher= HarperCollins Publishers | location= [[New York]] | isbn= 0060084383 }} Watson, Peter (2002). The Modern Mind: An intellectual history of the 20th century. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0060084383. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link) {{cite journal | last= | first= | coauthors= | title= | journal= | volume= | issue= | pages= | date= | url= | accessdate= }} {{cite journal | last= Bailey | first= David H. | coauthors= Borwein, Peter, and Borwein, Jonathan. | title= The Quest for Pi | journal= Mathematical Intelligencer | volume= 19 | issue= 1 | pages= 50–57 | date= [[1999-06-25]] | url= http://crd.lbl.gov/~dhbailey/dhbpapers/pi-quest.pdf | accessdate= 2006-06-29 }} Bailey, David (1999-06-25). "The Quest for Pi" (PDF). Mathematical Intelligencer. 19 (1): 50–57. Retrieved 2006-06-29. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) In the past few decades, television and video have become immensely popular. Many programs are broadcast that are suitable to be used as references here on Wikipedia. Here is an example of how to cite a video with the {{cite video}} template, along with the {{cite episode}} template for broadcast television. {{cite video}} and {{cite episode}} The blank template The template with relevant information plugged in What the template produces {{cite video | people= |date= | title= | medium= | publisher= | location= }} {{cite video | people= [[Burnie Burns|Burns, Burnie]] (writer, director), ''et al'' |date= [[2003 in machinima|2003]] | title= [[Red vs. Blue (season 1)|Red vs. Blue Season One]] | medium= DVD | publisher= [[Rooster Teeth Productions]] | location= [[Buda, Texas]] }} Burns, Burnie (writer, director) et al. (2003). Red vs. Blue Season One (DVD). Buda, Texas: Rooster Teeth Productions. {{cite AV media}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |authors= (help) {{cite episode | title= | series= | serieslink= | airdate= | season= | number= }} {{cite episode | title= Explosive Decompression, Frog Giggin', Rear Axle | series= MythBusters | serieslink= MythBusters | airdate= January 18, 2004 | season= 1 | number= 10 }} "Explosive Decompression, Frog Giggin', Rear Axle". MythBusters. Season 1. Episode 10. January 18, 2004. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help) If you are new to the use of such citation templates, that hopefully cleared up any confusion. Also, keep in mind that the only thing of great importance is the resulting style. Some editors simply format regular text since that takes up less space in the sandbox. Here's how you could do that with a full citation for a book. Full citation without citation template What to enter in the sandbox Full example Author surname, author given name ([[Year of publication]]). ''Title of book''. [[City of publication]]: Publisher. ISBN #. Watson, Peter (2002). The Modern Mind: An intellectual history of the 20th century. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0060084383. Alternate form (Chicago Manual of Style) Full example Author surname, author given name. ''Title of book''. [[City of publication]]: Publisher, [[Year of publication]]. ISBN #. Watson, Peter. The Modern Mind: An intellectual history of the 20th century. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002. ISBN 0060084383. The inline citation “ Let's say a reviewer has the books you mention and wants to verify your assessment. Ok? How is he going to do that, if you don't provide page numbers? By browsing the whole book? . . . I don't think it should be promoted to FA status, until page numbers are provided. ” — Yannismarou, November 17, 2006: FAC of Finnish Civil War Wikipedia:Footnotes has extensive instructions and information on how to properly format your inline citations. Now if you take a look at criterion 2c, it has an example of Harvard referencing. While that form of inline citation is fine, it is not very commonly used on Wikipedia. Footnote referencing, formally known as Cite.php, is far more common, and it doesn't take up the space in a line that Harvard references do. All you do is put in <ref> </ref> and put a citation template or a note in the middle. The resulting superscript number will be a link to the footnote. The quote at right illustrates how important proper citations – inline citations, their page numbers specifically – can be: it was a source of opposition when the article was nominated for FA status. If you check that article out, you'll see that the inline citations are those Harvard references mentioned earlier. There's no stylistic problem there, but there's something to notice: The links in those Harvard references are there because they are set up to take you from an inline citation to its corresponding full citation. Since the article (Finnish Civil War) has separate sections for Notes and "Bibliography", a term seldom used, the links aren't as useful since they would take you to the section right below it. Converting to the <ref> </ref> system can make an article easier to maintain, but going against consensus is not good, so tread softly. In some printed texts with notes and references you may see footnote shorthands like ibid., ditto, and Op. cit. But do not forget that this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not paper: Such shorthands are not to be used. (The abbreviation et al. for more than two authors, however, is okay.) If a specific inline citation needs to be used more than once, use terminated empty ref tags. To do this, make a short name for a particular reference – "multiple", for example – and put it in a ref tag like this: <ref name="multiple"> </ref>. Wherever the exact same citation is to be placed again, you would put in this <ref name="multiple"/>. When you are referencing a book, journal, thesis, or paper, the inline citation could be any of the following: Watson, The Modern Mind, pages 748–749. Watson (2002), 748–749. Watson 2002, 748–749. Watson, pages 748–749. Watson, pp. 748–749. Watson, 748–749. Bailey et al., The Quest for Pi, pages 50–57. Bailey et al. (1999), 50–57. Bailey et al. 1999, 50–57. Bailey et al., pages 50–57. Bailey et al., pp. 50–57. Bailey et al., 50–57. The first form is from the Chicago Manual of Style, which is: author, abbreviated title, page(s). The second form is from Harvard, the inline citation style of the APA, with the year of publication instead of the title of the work. In cases when an author has only one work that is being cited, the title or year of publication can be included, but it's not necessary. In the case of multiple cited sources from a single author, using titles or years of publication on every citation is necessary to identify which work is being cited. If there are multiple works from one author that were published in the same year, titles again work for differentiation; when using publication years, letter-coding is typically used (e.g. (2002a), (2002b) – used in APA style). The abbreviation "pp." is short for "pages", so as long as there is consistency of the use of either throughout the article, it doesn't matter which is used. (If only one page is being cited, "pp." wouldn't work since that is plural – "p." works for when a single page is cited.) As can be seen in the final example, simply the author's surname and the page(s) can be cited. When multiple pages are being cited, always use the en-dash between page numbers. Type &ndash; to produce the en-dash. Also, it's not a bad thing to have multiple citations at the end of a sentence. Sometimes, multiple citations can be incorporated into a single footnote reference. The section near the bottom Wikipedia:Citing sources recommends that the section near the bottom of the article that will contain the citations, full and inline, be titled one of these: == Notes == == References == "Footnotes" is a title rarely used: "Notes" and/or “References” are incredibly more common. Now what is the real difference, if any, between those titles? Well, there's not much if any. The {{reflist}} template, which will display all of the inline citations, ends up getting placed in there – and that's it. (The code <references/> will do the same thing but with normal-sized text.) When there are separate sections for Notes and References, however, {{reflist}} would go in Notes; and References would be a bullet-pointed, alphabetical listing of all of the cited sources. Many featured articles – e.g. Red vs. Blue, Pontiac's Rebellion, History of biology, and Óengus I of the Picts – have separate sections for Notes and References, and this is ideal when there are many citations. When there is only a "References" section, a sources' full citation should be presented the first time the source is cited, with a page number of course, then only a regular inline citation every following time that the source is cited. Also, when there are multiple works by one author, the author's name need not be repeated in every full citation – after the author's first full citation, three em-dashes (&mdash;) in a line can be used instead in the following full citations. Little things that are big While citation templates and footnote references are easy and make things look good, keep in mind that, like many things, they have to be in proper condition and working order to get the job done. One missing slash in a terminated empty ref tag can make an entire section disappear. Also, make sure that when you're using terminated empty ref tags that you use the exact same name when citing a source more than once. Some of the little things with what ends up being displayed, like consistency with abbreviations, tend to be overlooked since they aren't a big deal. Another common little thing is when dates in citation templates aren't linked, but that's not a big deal either. And it's not a crime if you don't have the ISBN code for a book, but it is ideal to have them. Notes Further reading Wikipedia:No original research — Just because you may know it to be fact does not mean that you can add it with no reliable source. (And don't make something up and call it fact.) Wikipedia:Trivia and Wikipedia:Notability — "Fun facts", even if you have a reliable source for it, do not belong on Wikipedia unless they are truly notable. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information — Always stay factual, but keep it comprehensive. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples — Examples of sources that can and cannot be used.