Talk:Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes baronets
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Leprof 7272 in topic Edits of this date
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Edits of this date
editA variety of edits were performed, most notably:
- Created a lede, which represents the content of the article,
- Clarified, when possible of ambiguous "he" and "his" pronouns, in sentences laden with male subject names,
- Removed "currently" time referencing language, noting at those points of unreferenced text that a time-statement is needed (via [when?] inline tag),
- Completed, as far as possible, of the two listed sources of information for the Infobox (no sources are cited for any body content),
- Noted, for lack of online access to the two appearing references, the need for book page numbers (though all other citation information was found and added),
- Created/renamed sections, so that the lede was separated from main body, and other material appeared in appropriately titled sections,
- Checked the content of the cited info box sources, determining, based on syntax and checking against a much earlier online source, that Infobox content is most likely plagiarized from the 2008 version of the peerage reference cited (i.e., no attempt at edit or paraphrase, and no appearance of quotation marks indicating direct transmission of that copyrighted material),
- Placed a copyvio tag to call attention to the apparent plagiarism,
- Noted no content of lede or main body is sourced, through placement of inline and section tags, and
- Moved sources, ouside links, etc., into appropriate sections.
I tagged the article as a whole as "unreferenced", because (i) the lede material is unsourced, (ii) the main body material is unsourced, and (iii) the Infobox material, while sourced, is plagiarized. (Using "unreferenced" was deemed closer to an accurate description of the state of things, than using "refimprove", because of the severity of the issues.)
Please discuss here before making changes just so that the article's appearance is improved. Readers deserve the truth about content, and are not trained to dig into Talk and other places to see how truly bad the situation is. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)