Talk:El Tío

Notes

I know this subject only second hand through the texts that are cited in the article, so I would really appreciate input from anyone who knows El Tío better than I do. Stylistic and copy editing help would also be much appreciated. --Joe Quick (Talk) 04:31, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Update

I’ve marked the article “developed” but it still needs work in a couple of areas:

• I would really appreciate a style editor here. Several sections of the article are written in rather dull and simple terms while others feel overly academic. Please feel free to rewrite and reorganize.

• Some sections are a little repetitive. In the interest of readability, these should be trimmed.

• Wikilinks. I’ve added some but I’m sure that I’ve missed some important ones, since I neglected to add them as I was typing.

• Fact checker. I’ve read as many reliable sources as I could find and I’m confident that I’ve followed them pretty well, but they are relatively few in number. So other scholarship, if you know of any, would be really helpful. In particular, the section about the offerings should be checked for inaccuracies.

• A glass of fresh-squeezed orange juice. My mouth is parched and I haven’t had fresh-squeezed in months. :-)

Thanks to all for any help you can provide. --Joe Quick (Talk) 06:32, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Can someone correct the problem with the footnotes? --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:52, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

They seem to be working fine for me. What kind of problem are you seeing? --Joe Quick (Talk) 18:57, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Image

I modified the original image to see if I could brighten it up without losing too much. Yes, no? --Robert W King 23:59, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

by R.W.King

original

I think it is much better.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:56, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Just want to get Mr. Quick's opinion before changing the article space, seeing as he started the article. --Robert W King 02:00, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Just do it! It is Draft of the Week, so is on public view. Also, can someone deal with the horrid footnotes, or tell me how to remove the wrong numbers? --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 04:25, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

I actually kind of like the darker picture. I think it shows off his sinister side. But feel free to do as you like; you can count on me to speak up if I don't like the results. :-) --Joe Quick (Talk) 10:13, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

P.S. I still don't really understand what the problem is with the footnotes. I confess that I was sloppy when I did them, but I'm not sure where I slopped. Could you point me to an example that I could follow? Thanks. --Joe Quick (Talk) 10:18, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

It is not about style: there is a technical problem which has inserted meaningless numbers at the beginning of each footnote! I dont know why...--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:37, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

I see, that makes me feel a little better. Do you mean the blue numbers (4.1, 4.2, etc.)? Those appear because there are multiple references to the same book. Clicking on them sends you back up to where that specific instance occurs in the text. This is actually partially a result of my sloppiness and partially a result of me not knowing the wiki standard for citations. I've cited each of the books several times but only one line appears in the citations because each instance is exactly the same (I left out page numbers even though it pained me because that seemed to be the standard). If I were to go back in and add page numbers, then each would appear individually.

I've been thinking about this recently, since we launched the subpages initiative. Since the full citations for those books will appear on the bibliography page, then would it be appropriate to cut footnotes down to something like: "Nash 1992: 106"? I have to admit that I've always used in-text citations and I remain pretty much clueless about the proper standards to follow for footnotes. --Joe Quick (Talk) 11:08, 21 September 2007 (CDT)