Talk:Don Young
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Bridge to Gravina (I refuse to call it "Nowhere"...)
The Gravina Island Bridge article is very well written and brings up the points that are not emphasized by the media (which, as a journalism student, I have to say acted sensationally on this issue) about access to developable land and access to Ketchikan's airport. As some people looking into Don Young may have heard of the issue, would it be a good or bad idea to add just a little more (about access to land) into this article? Perhaps then those people would be inspired to research the issue a little more before declaring it a "Bridge to Nowhere." Also, the link to the Gravina Island Bridge article is buried under the word "bridge," which looks like it would go to the WP article about bridges. It would probably be a good idea if someone could figure out how to rewrite the sentence so the link to the article is a little more obvious. (I actually stumbled across the Gravina Island Bridge article after looking up Gravina, and it wasn't until I came back to edit this section and add it in that I realized it was already in there. I tried to rewrite it but it wasn't working, and I have other homework I've got to do first...) cluth 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was just thinking that about the bridge link. I didn't even notice it there on the first read because I unconsciously assumed it would just go to Bridge, as you say. Linking "an enormous bridge" would be more noticeable, but seems a bit off—possibly giving undue emphasis to the word enormous?
- Changing the entire phrase to "the Gravina Island Bridge" would be redundant and flow badly... I'd suggest changing the heading for the paragraph to "Gravina Island Bridge" and linking that, but MoS:HEAD says don't do that. Hmm. That is a tricky one. —Zero Gravitas 03:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- How about:
-
-
- In 2005, Young and Stevens earmarked $223 million for a project to build an enormous bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island (pop. 50) [...]
-
-
- It's sort of clunky, but "a project" is more obvious as a topical link. —Zero Gravitas 03:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright violation
This article had material copied from an external web page. I have removed the material and have added a copyvio template to this page. Please do not copy text from other websites without permission. Samboy 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know, that tag doesn't need to remain if the text was removed and the entire history isn't polluted with the violation. I'm going to remove it, if it needs to remain, I wont oppose readdition solong as the subsequent processes are carried out. 68.39.174.238 10:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- CORRECTION, that dude who removed it was NOT ME!!! 68.39.174.238 10:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ambiguous sentence in Cape Wind section
When the article says "a measure opposed by the Coast Guard" it's not clear if they are opposing the bill to block the wind turbines or the turbines themselves. Which is it? --71.222.56.69 19:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverting of recent changes by User:69.143.13.88
I've reverted all changes just made by User:69.143.13.88, for a number of reasons. First, many of the changes use POVish language. Second, and more importantly, the changes fail the policy on biographies - controversial statements must be sourced. Third, the only source that was provided, for just one of the added sentences, is problematical: According to an article on June 14, 2007 from the Naples Daily News, Mack himself has strong ties to Mr. Aronoff. But when I ran a search at www.naplesnews.com, the results indicated there was no article dated June 14th that mentioned Mr. Aronoff.
I welcome any appropriate content being added back to the article if it has a valid source provided. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)