|
This will be my first source review, so bear with me.
- Individual footnotes
- FN 1: The linked page states the data are from 2010.
- FN 6/7: Google is overlinked.
- FN 8/19/21/26: Stamp 1987 doesn't refer to anything in the bibliography. Possible earlier edition of Stamp 1992?
- FN 10: No by-line in linked article, so I couldn't confirm the author.
- FN 11: Link appears dead.
- FN 14: What makes this a reliable source?
- Read the associated HTML comment. I'll pass the buck along to either Imzadi or FAC.
- FN 22: Last, First format needed for consistency. I couldn't access the link when I checked.
- FN 27: Link not required, but is there one to add?
- General
- Dates look fine to me.
- Publication cities: There are several publications with "Niagara" in their names that I assume were published in Niagara Falls. I don't see "Falls" in many of them.
- Maps could use scales.
I'll let @Imzadi1979: look over this review and some of the finer points and others I probably have missed. -happy5214 21:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Most fixed, with the exception of 27, as the link that once worked went dead. As for 10, I have access to the actual newspaper article through a database, which lists the author. The link does not, but at least allows readers to view the article. The
Some general additions to what Happy5214 noted above:
- Complete map citations should have scales, or
|scale=Scale not given (or even rarely |scale=Not to scale) added unless its to a variable-scale map like Google Maps. For consistency, I've been scales converting to ratios (1 in = 20 mi becomes 1:1,267,200 because 20 miles is 1,267,200 inches, although metric scale ratios are much neater, of course). If the scale is approximate, prefix it with "c.", and if you had to obtain the scale from a library catalog record instead of on the actual map, put it in square brackets.
- Map citations should also have authors (we overhauled {{cite map}} a year ago for this very reason) and only rarely should be using
|cartography= anymore. Follow what http://www.worldcat.org/ lists for author information when in doubt. (There's a map of Mackinac Island on the M-185 article drawn by Chris Bessert that does use |cartography= to ensure he's credited while others are indexed as the map's authors, following what the catalogs list.) Publication locations should also be added for paper map citations if they're listed for book citations.
- FN 9 should use
|sections= instead of |section= so that you get §§ instead of just §. Just as the abbreviation is doubled from p. to pp. to indicate plural, so it is with § and §§. Ditto |pages= on FN 2.
- {{Google maps}} does have a
|date= option for those cases when we're citing Street View to override the automatic access date = publication date behavior when citing dynamically generated maps. Honestly, if it's a SV cite, it probably should be cited with {{cite web}} because you're not actually citing a map, but a photo.
- Whenever possible, try to include an ISBN, ISSN or OCLC number for a source. Based on a presentation at WikiConUSA 2015, it's even a good idea to include an OCLC even if you have an ISBN listed. OCLCs link directly to WorldCat, while ISBNs link to a search page, requiring readers to make a second click to get to library information about the source. Also, several ISBNs can be associated with the same OCLC, because they're essentially all the same source.
- Publishers are not necessary for most newspapers. Volume and issue numbers are superfluous on newspaper citations as they are not routinely archived and indexed by volume, unlike journals. Locations shouldn't really be wikilinked in citations either because it dilutes the value of the links without providing value, unlike links to authors or publishers/newspapers which help readers who want to evaluate the credibility of a source.
- I was going to mention the volume/issue numbers, but I couldn't remember where I had seen that advice. -happy5214 20:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that volume and issue numbers are not needed even on "popular" magazines, just academic journals. For instance, Time prints its volume and issue numbers inside each issue in a box with the names of the editorial staff near the table of contents, but they don't print them on the cover. This is similar to many newspapers who also bury it in an interior page. Yes, it's there and could be cited, but it's not really useful.
- Additionally, a recent reviewer thought that I was citing the Wikipedia article on the Michigan Department of Transportation in a footnote because {{cite MDOT map}} linked the name of the cited paper map's publisher in that specific footnote. That's why we need to be judicious in what we link within footnotes to drive our readers to click on the proper link for a source and avoid overlinking just because we can.. Imzadi 1979 → 05:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found it's nicer to use {{cite book}} for reports and add
|type=Report to get the titles in italics. The notion of an unformatted title instead of either quotation marks for a "short-form" work or italics for a "long-form" work is a bit unsettling and seems out of place to me. Judicious use of |chapter= vs. |title= will allow you to choose which way (quotes, italics) to format the title of a report.
- One last suggestion, but there is {{harvp}} or {{sfnp}}, which differ from {{harvnb}} and {{sfn}} by putting their years in parentheses. I find this looks better because it's then more consistent with the rest of the full citations that have dates or years bracketed thusly.
As for FN 14, expect to defend that source at FAC. It may or may not fly there, and if it does, it may only because the reviewers didn't scrutinize it fully. Imzadi 1979 → 06:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Floydian: --Rschen7754 02:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied to Happy5214's comments above. I've fixed most of the concerns raised by Imzadi1979, although I have to go dig up the two maps for scales and find the OCLC numbers for the maps and books. Also, most older newspapers (as is the case of this paper from 1940) do show volume and issue right beneath their title on page one and often on the upper margin of each page. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times' lists its volume and issue numbers under the masthead, yet we still wouldn't list them for citation purposes. (I don't even think the NYT archives note them in the digital reproductions of articles from past issues, just the page numbers and dates from which those articles came.) For one, libraries catalog them by date, and two, it gets into the realm of pedantry to note why some papers have the numbers defined and others do not while raising concerns about consistency. In short, standard academic citation practice is to only include volume and issue numbers for journals and some magazines and to totally omit them for most other magazines and all newspapers. Imzadi 1979 → 02:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Floydian: following up with what I said above. Academic journals are traditionally bound into book format at the end of publishing year by libraries. So if a researched needed to consult an article published in volume 42 of the Journal of the American Medical Association, he'd just go to the shelf and pick up a book labeled "volume 42" and the year. Whether or not the issue number needs to be cited relies on if the publisher resets the page numbering between issues or at the end of a volume. As a result, citations for academic journals normally only included the year of publication, the volume and page number, adding the issue number if necessary.
As for newspapers and "popular magazines", these are traditionally scanned to microfilm and indexed by date. Even modern databases like Newspapers.com or NewspaperArchive.com indexes them just by date and omits the volume and issue numbers, meaning they are superfluous to our needs, which is why they aren't normally included in citations. Imzadi 1979 → 23:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense, I'll stray from it moving forward. Everything should be good on the article now; does it meet your muster? Happy5214, are you........... happy? - Floydian τ ¢ 23:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I updated the dates on FN 14, noted the lack of date on FN 11, and added the OCLC numbers on the two books by Stamp. Speaking of the OCLC numbers, I looked for ones for the two maps with ISBN numbers, but I couldn't find acceptable matches. I'd like to follow up on the SV citation, since the "(Map)" in it looks a little weird. I'm also still concerned about the format of the paper map citations, specifically the cartography vs. author issue and the missing scales. I'm fine with the rest, though. @Imzadi1979: anything else? -happy5214 22:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Happy5214: - Reformmated the SV citation as cite web, added the scales, and converted the cartographer to author. I went through about 100 results of each map without an OCLC, and came up short. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of minor tweaks (already made by me) and we're good to go. I'm passing this source review. -happy5214 01:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
