Talk:Crotalus scutulatus: Difference between revisions
imported>Mary Ash No edit summary |
imported>Peter Schmitt (→Remarks on sources: new section) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Any help would be appreciated== | ==Any help would be appreciated== | ||
I'm sure I didn't get the layout quite right but I did manage to figure out the pink box. Copy and paste is a good thing. :-) Feel free to correct my boo-boos. I did my best.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 05:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC) | I'm sure I didn't get the layout quite right but I did manage to figure out the pink box. Copy and paste is a good thing. :-) Feel free to correct my boo-boos. I did my best.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 05:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
== Remarks on sources == | |||
Sources should be chosen and selected according their relevance, and not be given a simple link, but by providing their "bibliographic data". | |||
Reference No.1 only cites the official "Red List". Thus the official "Red List" is the correct source. | |||
Reference No.2 is only a student paper. | |||
Reference No.3 is from a Community College. | |||
Both are, in my view, not suitable as a reference. | |||
Reference No.4 is the abstract of a scientific talk. It should be cited accordingly (Author, title, date, where) | |||
References No. 5 and 6 for a sentence '''quoted''' from No. 5 is not really useful -- choose the better one (while both are probably not the best possible). And: Such simple information should not be given as quote but integrated into the narrative. | |||
References Nos. 7 and 8 point to the same article that should be cited with Author, Title, Date, Place of publication. (perhaps better in the biography) | |||
Why did you copy "See also" items from WP? (We do not have such lists, you know.) | |||
--[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:12, 5 February 2011
Any help would be appreciated
I'm sure I didn't get the layout quite right but I did manage to figure out the pink box. Copy and paste is a good thing. :-) Feel free to correct my boo-boos. I did my best.Mary Ash 05:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Remarks on sources
Sources should be chosen and selected according their relevance, and not be given a simple link, but by providing their "bibliographic data".
Reference No.1 only cites the official "Red List". Thus the official "Red List" is the correct source.
Reference No.2 is only a student paper. Reference No.3 is from a Community College. Both are, in my view, not suitable as a reference.
Reference No.4 is the abstract of a scientific talk. It should be cited accordingly (Author, title, date, where)
References No. 5 and 6 for a sentence quoted from No. 5 is not really useful -- choose the better one (while both are probably not the best possible). And: Such simple information should not be given as quote but integrated into the narrative.
References Nos. 7 and 8 point to the same article that should be cited with Author, Title, Date, Place of publication. (perhaps better in the biography)
Why did you copy "See also" items from WP? (We do not have such lists, you know.)
--Peter Schmitt 00:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)