User talk:Paleorthid/Sandbox/Nimrod Glacier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I started this exercise to see what a strict adherence to quoting all PD sources would look like. -- Paleorthid (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look good before or after in my view, but I much prefer the latter. The "before" article doesn't make sense. It talks about the place being photographed, as if that is a caption to a photograph, but there is no photograph here. I am sure there are other clues that this is a careless cut-and-paste job. It seems hard to enter into this article to improve it. Oh, one idea occurs to me, go back to the original sources that it may have been copied from, and figure out what text came from where. Oh, okay, that is what the "after" view is, it is perhaps a conscientious editor trying to make sense of badly cut together text, as preparation to doing a complete rewrite him/herself, or to make it easier for others to enter into it now. I am still puzzled by that photo discussion. Where is the photo? If the photo is not available, why provide the photo caption? Sincerely, doncram (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, why would you write the first "after" sentence as it is now: The Nimrod Glacier is "a major glacier"[1] about 135 km ("85 mi"[1]) "long"[1]. I have never seen one word long quotations like that. Why not put it in your own words right away, like: The is Nimrod Glacier approximately 135 km (85mi) long.[1] This is in the largest decile of glaciers indexed in Joe's Index of Glaciers.[2]

It sure is inviting for another editor to jump in and improve this one, as it should be. doncram (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)