Don't delete refs. before going through the list, it can distort the ref. nos. mentioned here.
Can all the date formats be converted to DD-MM-YYYY ?
- Most sources, and the topic itself, is based in the United States, which uses a Month/day/year format. As such, it's best left as-is. North America1000 12:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, but ref. 2 is in a different format. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Y I have updated the source. North America1000 13:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proper formatting needed in refs. 3, 10
Proper formatting needed in refs. 42, 47, 58, 78, 90
Refs. 2, 4, 20, 24, 28, 35, 38, 40, 61, 64, 83, 89, 94, 95, 96, 100, 103 seem to be deadlinks
- I fixed Refs 95, 96, 100 & 103, and crossed them out above. Mojoworker (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Y Deadlink templates are now present for ref numbers: 2, 4, 20, 28, 35, 38, 40, 61, 64, 83, 89, 94. North America1000 10:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Y The link for ref #24 is working at this time. North America1000 10:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if refs. 7, 9, 10, 37, 49 are reliable.
- Ref #7 is essentially a primary source used to verify content in the article, but it's a reliable primary source reporting what Jamie Oliver said. I have removed this citation from the lead. Note that this removal moved the source to #37 in the references section. North America1000 11:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #9 is from Drovers, a reliable source. From [1]: "Drovers, Farm Journal's leading source for information on the beef industry, provides useful business management and marketing information for all segments of the industry." North America1000 11:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #10 is published by CNN, a reliable source. North America1000 11:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #37 is now ref #36 in the article. It is a primary source (as per the above), and I have added the dead link template to it. North America1000 11:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #49 is reliable, published by CBS New York. North America1000 11:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for elaborating on this. I agree with your points. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Italics for agency in ref. 8. Please check for the other sources. You can also link the sources like USA Today
Ref. 25: Caps for e in "editorial"
I could not access refs. 15, 16
-
- Sorry, seems I had some connection trouble. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved. It appears you are able to access the source at this time. North America1000 13:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref. 19 seems to be going elsewhere.
- I am able to access the link here, which is properly formatted in the article. North America1000 13:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, seems I had some connection trouble. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved. It appears you are able to access the source at this time. North America1000 13:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref. 68-Reuters, not reuters.com. Similarly in ref. 85
Refs. 20, 46, 56, 62, 63, 70, 84 seem to be going elsewhere.
- Y Updated: Added dead link template to ref #20, 46, 56, 63 and 84. I am able to access ref #62 [4] and #70 [5]. North America1000 15:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if "dead link" templates should stay in an article. Could we just omit the URLs? And the Yahoo sources are still redirecting to the Yahoo homepage for me. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead links can often be accessed using internet archive services, such as the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. As such, I feel the dead links are best left in place. Also, dead links occasionally become live again. North America1000 16:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could not check refs. 78, 102 and 104.
|