User talk:ArielElise/sandbox

Hello team ArielElise (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All - You might also find posts about CWILA on the collective blog, Hook & Eye, useful. If you aren't familiar with this blog, it is by Canadian female academics: http://www.hookandeye.ca/search?q=CWILA. Astu260instructor 2016 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Astu260instructor_2016 (Kathryn)[reply]

Hi Team CWILA, I thought I'd just take a look at your page and see how it is going. I noticed you had a date error in your citation and fixed it. Wikipedia is a bit odd around date formats but YYYY-MM-DD always works. I like the sections that you've identified for being important for the article and look forward to seeing more. Cheers, Will (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, thanks for the quick fix! I'm noticing that the "automatic" generator isn't always accurate for citations - should we still use it or manually put in the info? Also, I'm listing the dates (2011-2015) as sub-headers under the "statistics" header, but I'm not sure which size to use. Is this an aesthetic choice or is there a specific structuring to the sizing of sub-headers? Cheers, ArielElise (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, I had another quick question. Is it possible to delete some re-usable citation sources if they are incorrect or have been inputted more than once? Many thanks, ArielElise (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the questions and here's a few quick answers. - First, if the automatic citation generator isn't accurate, for sure you can edit the citation and add correct info - to do so, click on the superscript number (footnote) of the citation and then click edit. This should pull up a form where you can add or edit the citation. If you would like to delete a citation entirely, you can just delete the superscript number (footnote) from the article and then replace it with the correct citation. It's good practice to reuse the same reference (i.e. multiple footnotes to the same reference) rather than listing it multiple times. Also, you formatted the sub-headers great. Generally, you want to just flow the size down and this helps keeps the auto generated table of contents organized. Thus if Statistics is a heading, the next section break would be sub-heading 1. If you had multiple sections under a year, those would be subheading 2. Thus "Statistics" = heading; "2011" = subheading 1; "July" = "subheading 2"; etc. Cheers, Will (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All - I am checking in, too. I recall that you are planning to include a quick biographical note on the Critics-in-residence, and I think that doing this might also help you revisit how you introduce this position. I see that interviews with the critics (e.g., the 2015 critic, Crawford, in Quill and Quire: http://www.quillandquire.com/omni/qa-cwila-critic-in-residence-lucas-crawford/) also offer really useful insights into the aims and impacts of CWILA. Kathryn --Astu260instructor 2016 (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Team CWILA - I was really interested to learn that Jerome's inspiration for CWILA came from the blog post by NatalieZed. I think it would be useful to cite it (which you may already be planning to do): http://nataliezed.ca/2012/closing-the-gap-reviewing-canadian-books-of-poetry-written-by-women/. Kathryn --Astu260instructor 2016 (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and advice, Kathryn. We'll get on that right away. We're almost done moving over our draft from our Google document.ArielElise (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]