Talk:Snake (animal): Difference between revisions
imported>India Williams (adding checklist template and filling out what I know) |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
}} | |||
Beginning to rewrite this article with 2 goals in mind: (1) using language that maintains the interest of the general reader and (2) fitting the subject into biological science. Please join me![[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 09:58, 29 January 2007 (CST) | Beginning to rewrite this article with 2 goals in mind: (1) using language that maintains the interest of the general reader and (2) fitting the subject into biological science. Please join me![[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 09:58, 29 January 2007 (CST) |
Revision as of 16:48, 14 November 2007
Beginning to rewrite this article with 2 goals in mind: (1) using language that maintains the interest of the general reader and (2) fitting the subject into biological science. Please join me!Nancy Sculerati MD 09:58, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Removed line about "old synonym for snakes". It's perfectly acceptable to call a snake a serpent, this is a current synonym. Nancy Sculerati MD 10:05, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Format: Derivation and use of word/triple line/Body of article
I would like to make a case for adopting this as Citizendium style. I think it has the advantage of keeping all the word origin and use stuff, but- especially if it became standard and users would learn that the actual article starts after the triple line- not muddying up the introduction with this stuff. Nancy Sculerati MD 10:09, 29 January 2007 (CST)
As I am editing this article I am finding a number of direct quotation from sources that are not placed in quotes and are not referenced. Therefore, I am deleting them as I go. No original research does not mean no original writing ;-) !!Nancy Sculerati MD 10:17, 29 January 2007 (CST)