Wikipedia talk:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC

Publisher location

"Publisher location and, where possible, ISBN are usually added, although not specifically stipulated in MoS" - is adding the location still usual, I wonder? Certainly it's common. I don't like doing it, not least because so many books (especially the sort I use, on art) are simultaneously published, usually in the US & UK, but also other combinations. The ISBN will give you that anyway. Looking at FAC now, I see many that do, but eg Philip I Philadelphus doesn't. Oh, well, maybe it is still usual. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not keen on adding location either, and WP:CITEHOW doesn't require it, but it's standard practice so we're probably stuck with it. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Consistency first. Secondly reviewers and editors should have a good idea of when an article needs it. For example distinguishing an imprint of a hqrs press from a predatory press of same or similar name? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Help section

Hi Brian, I'm replying here to your note on my talk to keep everything together. You asked who should be listed in the Help section. I was thinking of adding that reviewers can seek advice on WT:FAC, rather than listing individuals. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I like this idea as many helpful reviewers watch that page. It also allows the helpful to have a life outside of helping. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)