Klcai
|
| |||||
| |||||
|
Editing cheatsheet |
Summary of policies and guidelines | ||||
|
Find the page for your course |
Choose a mentor | ||||
|
Help with article assessment |
Starting an article | ||||
| |||||
|
Chat with us: Ask a question on the Public Policy IRC channel or on the regular help chat | |||||
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
Mentor request; articles edit
Yes, I'd be happy to be your mentor. Let me know if you have any questions about editing, so far. You asked me to comment on the four article choices:
If these acts have already been passed by Congress, then they will make good subjects for articles. If they have only passed one chamber of Congress, I would say that it would be better to work on an article that has fully passed Congress, unless either the passage of the legislation is virtually assured. When I try to decide if an article is Notable, I always think: Will this article be of interest to a large number of readers in 5 years? If the legislation is NOT adopted, will a large number of encyclopedia readers want to read this article in 5 years? Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so it should include topics that are of enduring interest. See WP:NOTE.
- The Pirate Bay trial - No section on the appeal which ended Oct 15th, 2010.
This article is already rated B-class, so to get it promoted to Good Article-class or Featured Article-class will be difficult. It cannot be done simply by updating the information about the appeal - the entire article will need to be upgraded and polished. This can be done, but it will require a holistic approach to improving the entire article. Of course, if you guys did get this article up to WP:GA-class, it would be a great accomplishment, and would be much-admired by everyone. See WP:Good Article criteria.
- List of intellectual property legislation proposed in the United States Congress - No information on 111th Congress
This is a "list" article, and it could be promoted to Featured List-class. This will require a lot of work! Is this list intended to be a complete list of all IP legislation proposed in the history of the U.S.? If so, it will be a very long list! Otherwise you could add "...proposed since 2000 in..." or something like that. Plus, it would be much easier to list the legislation that was actually passed, rather than all the legislation that was proposed. In any case, of course, you CAN list anything, but this seems like a very open-ended project at present. You could all break it down so that each person does two years, or something like that.... However, I am not sure how you can satisfy the course requirement of raising the article by "two classes", since there really is only one class (FL) to raise it to. But, I think your instructor would agree that a Featured List satisfies the course critieria. As I said, this seems like a very big project, unless we agree to somehow limit it. Maybe a subarticle: List of intellectual property legislation passed in the United States Congress since 2000. Of course, it could not be a naked list like this. There would need to be some discussion. Here is an example of what such an article might look like: List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
File Sharing Act edit
Hi, Klcia. Good work on the File Sharing Act. Please let me know when you work on an article, so I can review it right away. It took me a couple of days to realize that you had worked on it. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi- I and another member of my group have been working on the article, and will continue to do so tonight and tomorrow. Hopefully by then, we will find a way to incorporate material that is as of yet only cited in the references section. Additionally, a message on the article's discussion page mentioned citing per line/sentence.. is there a specific way to do this? Thanks :) Klcai (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think the message was suggesting that if there is a paragraph with, say, two references, but one of the references applies to sentences 1 and 2, while the other reference refers to sentence 3, then the first reference should go after sentence 2, while the second sentence should go after sentence three. Basically, the references should go right after the text that they support. Does that answer your question? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, you need to apply a little judgment sometimes: If you are citing the same source throughout a paragraph, you just need one cite at the end of the paragraph ... unless the paragraph has controversial statements or direct "quotes", in which case, you usually repeat the cite after the quote or controversial statement. If you have different cites for different assertions in the paragraph, then you put the cite immediately after the assertion. Here's a silly example. Let's say I have three sources, one of which focuses on apples, one discusses oranges, and a third discusses plums. It could look like this:
I filled the car with apples.[1] The second vehicle was filled with oranges and plums.[2][3] We delivered all of the fruit to the market.[1][2][3] The apples sold the best. According to the CEO of the company, "Apples are our best-selling product".[1] The rules for the first section of an article are actually a little different, since the introductory section is supposed to be sort of a summary of the whole article hitting the highlights. See WP:LEAD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Breakdown_of_House_Vote_on_Secure_Federal_File_Sharing_Act.png edit
Thank you for uploading File:Breakdown_of_House_Vote_on_Secure_Federal_File_Sharing_Act.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Breakdown of House Vote on Secure Federal File Sharing Act.png edit
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Breakdown of House Vote on Secure Federal File Sharing Act.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —innotata 23:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
