Talk:Edward Daniel Stone

Article comments

Elisa.rolle, Thanks for your improvements to the article. Here are some copy edit type comments.

• The second + words of the section heading should not be capitalized, unless it's a proper noun.
• Punctuation goes before the citation tag. See WP:PAIC
  •  Done - looks much better!
• There are still some places where there are no citations, does that mean that reliable sources cannot be found and that content should be removed?
• When it says he was known as E.D.S. - who knew him as E.D.S.? Where was he referred to just as E.D.S.?
  • Elisa, Reilley (sp?) just used E.D.S. as shorthand in her blurb about him, the way that company or organization's abbreviations are given in parens and then the abbreviations are used. When I google E.D.S. and Stone - I get nothing, which means that others didn't refer to him as E.D.S. So, this is confusing in the context of this article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Carole, ah, ok, I mistook that point --Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• When adding links to articles, the first instance of the article has the link. So, Eton in the lead should be the place where the article is linked.
  •  Done
• For the children, rather than having a lot of citations, does it make sense to just have one instance of the sources at the end of the sentence?
  •  Done - looks much better!

I haven't started checking the sources yet, but this is the initial take about the article... now getting into copy edit type of comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Updates.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You're making great progress on this article, Elisa.rolle. There's still some work that is needed to complete or format a couple of the citations. For instance, I am not sure what the " Ibid" citation refers to. If it's the previous citation in this source, then <ref name="" /> should be used. If it came from the source, then the source that it came from should be used (vs. looking up what ibid referred to for the sources footnote).

I think that based upon his work as a scholar and author, as well as running the prep school he's at least borderline notable. It would be great to find information that explained how his works were received - reviews or how they influenced others to help establish notability.

The ref improve tag can be removed now - I didn't want to interupt your editing to remove it.

As a side note, there may be some that come along and question going into detail about the children's background, and state that it is not a genealogy page - another way of saying too much detail / getting off-track.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Elisa.rolle, Based upon the comments by Alex on your talk page, I summarized this information. I then found that the sources that were used were genealogy sites, which are not reliable sources... which has been mentioned before.

How about if you hold off on any more edits for the short run and I'll work on a checklist.

You are making good progress and the articles are better, but I think that this will help.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Hi Elisa.rolle,

I added a close paraphrasing tag, although copyvio may have been more appropriate, for the Mid-Victorian Poetry, 1860-1879 source. It was the first source that I was able to look at. So, there may be other copyvio issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, to avoid copyright problem, please review the article without me recreating the copyvio--Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying... or asking.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I changed the text, but I cannot copy here the previous text due to copyright, correct? I do not want for you to have to put again a copyrev warning, so please use the history on the page to understand if the changes are enough. Please be aware that the "source" is a summary list therefore the approach wasn't to "summarize" but actually was to write longer sentences with more details.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. With that source, I know it's tricky because they were short sentences with key facts that would need to be incorporated in the sentences. Sometimes the best you can do is just to change the order of the words. So, for instance, I rephrased and reordered the sentence about having "kept a preparatory school" to "In 1884, he established a school in Broadstairs, Kent. Located in Stone House, he operated the school until 1895."–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Elisa.rolle, There was still content that needed to have been paraphrased. Here's a diff that shows the content that I paraphrased... and how I did it. I know it's a little tricky with bare facts, but hopefully these are good examples.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Elisa.rolle, Do you mind looking at Reilly again? You removed information about the 1884-1895 period... and the source does not say that his son was a master at Radley College.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I trust better the other source I gave for the dates, cause it's local and more detailed. As for the Radley College, yes, you are right, it's say he went with his son to Radley college, but I have another source that says Frank was master at Radley College, so I will add the source to Reilly.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That is cherrypicking what sources to use. If you are using sources that you both find to be reliable enough to use as a source, and there is a disagreement about the information, then there should be some mention of it, rather than ignoring it. I'll add a note about the discrepancy. (I saw it as an overlap).–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Elisa.rolle, I found an obit for him, and that has essentially the same info as Reilly, so I returned that. The information from the other source was not reliable, and I removed it. I removed other sources that were either personal sites and/or genealogy sites... but found some better sources. So, I think it's in good shape right now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)