 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment
editHi, I was asked to comment here about the recent disagreement.
Wmmbpc, looking at this diff, the contact information and list of staff aren't appropriate. The tone is also problematic, in that it sounds as though the newspaper itself could have written it. The article can't be used as a platform to promote the newspaper.
83d40m, looking at the same diff, the criticism you want to add seems laboured. It's also not clear that the sources back you up. Looking at this source, for example (an editorial in the Pelican Press), you have that supporting "This change in editorial policies has provoked dismayed criticism from community and neighborhood leaders citing biased reporting and editorials ..." But nowhere in the editorial does it say that it's provoking dismayed criticism. :)
The two sourcing policies on WP are WP:NOR and WP:V. Jointly they say that all material in articles must be supported by sources who say what the edit says, and the sources ought preferably to be secondary sources, such as articles in other newspapers. If you read this section of the NOR policy, it will explain our policy on secondary sources, and this section of the V policy explains what kinds of sources are allowed.
So in summary, the criticism should be written in a disinterested way—not too detailed or laboured—and the sources must directly support the material in the article, without editors adding their own opinions, or their own interpretation of primary sources. In other words, the source must actually say what you want to add to the article, not simply show it, imply it, or act as an example of it, in your opinion.
I hope this helps a little. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi 83, I see you restored the criticism section. I'm afraid it's not policy compliant as it stands. Readers' letters aren't reliable sources within the meaning of our sourcing policies, and it's not even clear that readers' letters are saying what the edit says. See WP:SOURCES for the kinds of sources we allow. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks - made a final polish and the article is looking more appropriate, it still needs categories, however. ----83d40m (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Where would this article be with out the 'appropriate editing' of 83d40m?71.101.126.5 (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)wmmbpc