Talk:Buteyko method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] To Do List
Since nothing has been done in 3 months, I have identified some problems with this article and would be very grateful for assistance in making the relevant changes.
1. Citations need to be redone in wiki style.
- DoneDavid Ruben Talk 04:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Citations should be accurate to the comments made. We don't need a list of 10! One, two or three will be fine.
3. Reword introduction to be more concise and contain the core important information.
4. Some work still needs to be done on the article itself.
5. Clinical studies and external links sections need a good cleanup too.
Feel free to amend this list of things to do (that is both add to and remove from) as you make progress. Good luck!
Note: I have also cleaned out most of this old Talk section to get a somewhat fresh start. Most of the important suggestions (thank you very much Peter!) have been added to the article in some way. Please continue to make comments on discussing how this article can continue to improve.
--Spathi 17:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reworking of references/footnotes etc
Previously the article manually directed the reader to items in a numbered References section (e.g. "Ref 16"). This a poor mechanism in an encyclopaedic entry that many editors will be contributing too (vs. single editor who can keep tract). This is because should any additional reference need to be inserted, then all the directions to subsequent references need to be manually updated. Options are to use the Harvard system, "(Name Year)" appearing in the text and then an alphabetically ordered References section (which is normally in wikipedia bullet-pointed vs. numbered-list). Alternatively a footnote system that provides forward and back links and will auto-generate the citation link-numbers can be used – see WP:FOOTNOTES.
As cite.php (ref tags) system already started, I switch the manual links to this system. The naming of the ref citations allowed duplicate citations to be shown in the new Notes section. Please note, yes I am well aware of the abbreviation for a citation's subsequent use (i.e. of <ref name="xxx"/>), but this is most useful where the citations/links are likely to remain fairly stable. In this article there are far too many places where excessively long series of citations are listed and this needs a deep pruning back. The risk though if we use <ref name="xxx"/>, is that should the 1st full ref definition get deleted, it can be hard to restore the lost details to the subsequent abbreviated ref tags. Providing the full details on each occasion, for a short while, allows us to now trim the long lists of citation links, without having to worry about breaking the cite.php initial definitions of named references.
More importantly I have also applied standard formatting of the References & Notes by use of citation templates. Searches on PubMed were tried for all entries to ensure correct citation details and allow PMID links to abstracts of the various papers. David Ruben Talk 04:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
