In the first paragraph of the article on San Blas Islands, I see a word "comarca". I had never seen that word, so I looked it up on Wiktionary and found that it is a Catalan word. Shouldn't the word be in italics? It's not an English word. Or, alternatively, an English word could be used instead; perhaps "district". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading the article on Fiji, and in the third paragraph of the lead I found the following sentence:
First, a simple question: would it be all right if I changed "seventeenth and eighteenth" to "17th and 18th"? Also, since it follows a BC date, should I add "AD", or is it clear that it is AD?
Second, I am puzzled by the last phrase in the sentence which not only feels just tacked on. almost as an afterthought, but is unclear. How could any administration anywhere last "almost a century"? And what administration? Any thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence in the first paragraph in the "History" section in Fiji ends with:
I feel there is some ambiguity in both uses of the pronoun "they", especially the second one. Is it clear that both refer to "the Lapita peoples or the ancestors of the Polynesians" and not Melanesians?
Do you think "would have then moved on" is all right? I'm thinking that something such as, "they then moved on to", or "they probably moved on to". I know it "would have then moved on to" is used because it is the somewhat hypothetical result clause following an unwritten "if" clause: If Polynesians lived on Fiji, they would then have moved on", but I think it is pretty clear that Polynesians moved eastward through the islands and eventually to Hawaii, so I don't think it is necessary to use the hypothetical "would have". What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Synesthesia, I just re-read the short paragraph that was added about a week ago on "Mirror touch synesthesia" (because someone had just added "citation needed", it appeared in my watchlist today). I made a few small edits to improve clarity and syntax, but I still have a question. In the last sentence it says "simulation". In wonder whether it should not be "stimulation" since it refers to touch, but I'm not sure. What do you think? If you feel it should be changed, go ahead and make the edit.
Also, a question re style: The first sentence (which is the one I worked on) is all singular. Then the second sentence is all plural:
Generally, I don't care for such a switch in number. What do you think about:
CorinneSD (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading the article on Tonga. It is generally well-written. I have found few problems, but have made a few minor edits. I wonder if you could look at the last sentence in the first paragraph in the section "Military" and tell me whether you think the second "Tongan" is necessary. Without it, is it clear that it means Tongan loss of life and not any loss of life?CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The third sentence in the first paragraph in the section "Culture and diaspora" contains a phrase that is capitalized: "As of 2013". I wanted to change "as" to lower case, but when I looked at the phrase in edit mode, I saw double curved brackets and a pipe. I didn't know the reason for those, so I left it as is. Could you look at it and tell me what's going on? Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you are following this article on Robin Maugham, but the editor who made the last edit requested help regarding the Strand Theatre. Do you know anything about the Strand Theatre?CorinneSD (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw an edit to San Blas Islands in which the editor changed
Now, technically the plural verb is probably correct, but it still sounds odd to me. I'm wondering whether it would sound better with another verb such as:
Any thoughts?CorinneSD (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw a group of edits made to Lenition. Most (or some) seem to be fine, but I noticed that he or she changed several single British 'quotes' to the double American "quotes". I thought the WP rule was to leave those as they are -- or determine in which style -- British or American -- the article is predominantly written and then make everything consistent with that style. Do you feel like looking at the article to see which style should be used and whether or not those quotes edits should be changed back or left as they are?
Also, I know i.e. is usually followed by a comma, but is e.g. also usually followed by a comma?CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw an edit to the article on Indonesia that just added this (you need to look at it in Edit mode):
Could you tell me what this is? I'm just curious. And what (if any) is the connection between "Atheism" and "Mid-20th century political swings"?CorinneSD (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw an edit to the article on Akkadian language in which the editor simply added a necessary space before the edition and date of a reference. I think it was "3rd. ed. 2011". My question is, should there be a period after "3rd" and after "ed"? I can understand after "ed" (but I wonder about it only because I was getting help yesterday on converting centimeters to inches, using the abbreviations cm and in, and learned that periods are not used for those in WP, so don't know if a period is used after "ed"), but I have never seen a period after "3rd", "4th", etc. Is that something special for WP references?CorinneSD (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that an editor has been changing dates such as "1935-1945" to "1935-45" in David Lloyd George. I wonder why. There doesn't seem to be a space constraint, and the full dates are so much easier to read. In the shortened version, one has to stop and think a bit, slowing down reading for a brief moment. What is the point of that?CorinneSD (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just started reading the article on Vietnam. The second sentence in the lead reads:
My question is, are the hyphens necessary in the two phrases, "13th-most-populous country" and "eighth-most-populous Asian country"?CorinneSD (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the article on Holocene, following a link from Vietnam, and I noticed a comma where there should be either a semi-colon or a dash in the text at the bottom half of the colorful table located to the right of the lead of the article. I could not find the text in edit mode in order to make the correction. Can you find it? You can go ahead and make the correction or let me know how to find it. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got to Maritime Southeast Asia from Vietnam (since I didn't know what it meant, exactly). I noticed in the second sentence of the article,
that, at the end of the sentence, one phrase is in quotes and the other phrase is italicized. Do you see any reason for that, or should they be consistent? If consistent, which do you prefer -- quotes or italics?CorinneSD (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph in the section "History and use" in the article on Stevia is as follows:
I feel there is some redundancy in the first and second sentences, but at the moment I cannot figure out a way to consolidate the information without losing any new information. Do you want to have a go at it?CorinneSD (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think neither of these can be correct. The second one is clearly not correct regarding sweetening medicine, based on what the first sentence says. (Also, I noticed that the two sentences came from the same page range in the same source, so it is not a case of two different pieces of research by two different writers.) I think it is safe to delete "for hundreds of years". Then the question is whether it is safe to delete "in Brazil and Paraguay". If we delete "in Brazil and Paraguay", then we also delete "in both countries". I just cannot imagine that the Guaraní in areas that are now Argentina and Uruguay did not also use stevia, and that they did not enjoy stevia for non-medicinal purposes until only a few hundred years ago.CorinneSD (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw an edit to Greenland in which an editor changed "monetary policy" to "fiscal policy" with an edit summary saying "this was confused in the earlier version". I could not find "the earlier version", but just based on my knowledge of what is colloquial in English, to me, "monetary policy" is a much more common phrase than "fiscal policy". I've heard "fiscal management", "fiscal year", "fiscal conservatism", but not so much "fiscal policy". I don't know enough about the topic to be 100% sure this is an error. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of my edit to Language isolate?CorinneSD (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent edit to Sri Lanka, an editor added a link to a phrase, "island country". I thought I had read somewhere in WP Manual of Style that it was not good to overload an article with links. Do you think this link is a good edit or is adding an unnecessary link?CorinneSD (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just started reading the article on Bamboo. In the first paragraph in the section "Genus and geography", I was struck by the word "anywhere". It wasn't clear to me to what, exactly, "anywhere" referred. Does it refer only to South American or to anywhere in the world? Is it clear to you? What do you suggest?CorinneSD (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Bamboo 2" -- rhymes! In the second-to-last paragraph in the section "Mass flowering" in the article on Bamboo, the second half of the paragraph is as follows:
I have two questions:
I saw an edit to Fiji. I kind of agreed with the point made about 40% not being "most", and the re-written sentence seemed an improvement. I decided to improve it further and re-arranged some words. I also dated the two "citation needed" tags that the editor placed. However, upon thinking a bit further, I thought, this far into the article, wouldn't there already be a reference with basic facts about the country such as population numbers? I looked for one. In "Population" I saw a link to a whole article on "Demographics in Fiji". I saw that the information about population was from "Fiji Statistics Department". I had seen that, and other possible sources, in the list of references at the bottom of the Fiji article. Does every last fact in an article have to have a reference, or is it enough that the source is given somewhere in the article? Was the editor right to add "citation needed" twice in that paragraph on religion? Just trying to learn... – CorinneSD (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Help! I've been reading the article on Zante currant and have made a few edits. About halfway through the article I came upon 'Black Currant' and 'Red Currant' and 'White Currant'. Since the article seemed to be written primarily in American English, I decided to change the single quotation marks to double quotation marks. (Single quotation marks are rarely used in American English; they are used only when enclosing a quote (or a quoted word or two) within another quote.) I finished one section ("Cultivation") and then started the next ("Culinary uses"), where I saw more of these phrases. I also noticed phrases in double quotes in the same section. I stopped changing them. I started wondering whether putting something like this in single quotes was something special to botanical terms. (I also wondered whether the quotes were necessary at all, after the first mention earlier in the article.) If you think the quotes should stay (and then I'd have to replace the ones I changed), is there a way to find out whether the single quotes are correct for these particular phrases?CorinneSD (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the last paragraph in the section "Distribution" in the article on Gooseberry, I found the following sentence:
Shouldn't the verb in the final clause be "raised" rather than "have raised"? Maybe there are still "working cotton-spinners" in Lancashire today, but I think the sentence is about the end of the 18th century. I thought this was an easy call, but I thought I'd check with you just in case you think there are still cotton spinners who raise gooseberries in Lancashire today.CorinneSD (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand using the en-dash to indicate a range of numbers, like 5–7 miles, but I don't understand the use of the en dash for years, as in "1557-58". I've always seen, and used, a hyphen here, and I see editors changing the hyphen to an en-dash, as in Woolpit. To me,『1557–58』looks silly. Is that standard WP style? Why??CorinneSD (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed some edits to Bangladesh that I want to ask you about. The editor apparently updated both years and dollar figures, but the dollar figures have a period after the first three digits (100.000 instead of 100,000). I thought the comma was standard on WP, or is it because they are in a reference?CorinneSD (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you are watching the article on Thomas Merton, but an editor made several edits which I wonder about. He or she changed "Merton" to "Thomas Merton", but I thought that after the first mention of the full name, the last name can be used. He or she even added "Thomas" to "Merton" once after "Merton" was used in the same paragraph.
Also, he or she changed "an 18th Century English Literature class" to "an 18th-century English Literature class". Normally, when 18th century is used as an adjective, it takes the hyphen, but in this case it is the name of a literature class about the 18th century, so I don't think it needs the hyphen and "century" should be capitalized, right? I just wanted to check with you on that.CorinneSD (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just started reading the article on Isles of Scilly. The first sentence in the second paragraph is as follows:
Don't you think this sentence is not only long but a bit inelegant? Do you have any ideas for improvement?
The last sentence of the second paragraph is as follows:
The verb "have" seems to be to be incorrect, but I thought I'd check with you to see if by some strange chance "Natural England" is considered plural. I see in the article that it is a government "body", but still.... – CorinneSD (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading the article on Priscillian. I want to ask your opinion on something. In the fourth paragraph in the section "Continued Priscillianism", it says, "Priscillian casts a long shadow in...." I think "casts" should be "cast". He lived in the 300s AD, and the article tells the story of his life and then how many people in Portugal, northern Spain, and perhaps also southern France followed his ideas for several hundred years after his death. The second half of the sentence in which "Priscillian casts a long shadow" appears has verbs in present perfect tense, but I still think most of this section is about what happened from about 380 to about 580, or perhaps through the Inquisition, not right up to today (so I wonder about the use of present perfect), but even if those verbs stand, I think "cast" is more accurate than "casts". Using "casts" suggests that he is somehow still alive, still present, today. I thought I'd ask you for your opinion. (I can be persuaded that "casts" is all right, but I'd like to know the reasoning.)CorinneSD (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked on a link to Haakon JarlinScilly Isles because I saw Jarl Haakon in the same paragraph. Then I read that article. Near the beginning of the article I saw "linage". I thought it was clearly a typo, so I changed it to "lineage". Just to be sure, I checked on Wiktionary and saw that "linage" was an alternate spelling! I was so surprised. I had never seen that alternate spelling, and I've always heard "lineage" pronounced LIN ee əj, so how could there be an alternate spelling "linage"? Shall I leave it "lineage" or put it back?CorinneSD (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, could you look at the last edit to Parsi? The editor added "Persian language" to a link that just said "Persian", but there is already a link to "Persian language" earlier in the same sentence. Should there be two links to "Persian language"? If not, which one should be kept? If you think anything should be changed or deleted, go ahead and make the edit.CorinneSD (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the last edit to Bangladesh, the editor changed "women empowerment" to "women's empowerment" and "reducing population growth" to "population growth reduction".
Regarding the first one, I think it's all right, but I would prefer "the empowerment of women". What do you think?
Regarding the second one, I think that phrase, "population growth reduction", is not colloquial English. I had earlier worked on this sentence. I don't know how I missed "women empowerment". I also don't remember how it was worded originally and what exactly I changed, but I know I was trying for parallel structure in all the phrases. I know having a gerund in the list breaks the parallel structure a bit, but I don't think "population growth reduction" is an improvement. If "reducing population growth" is not all right, I think "the reduction of population growth" is better than "population growth reduction". Which do you prefer, "reducing population growth" or "the reduction of population growth", or something else?CorinneSD (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you get back on-line....
In the second paragraph in the section "France 1926" in this article on Thomas Merton, it reads:
I wonder why disambiguation is needed when there is a parenthetical phrase identifying Murat.CorinneSD (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph in the section "France 1926", we read:
"The Lycée" refers to the Lycée Ingres, mentioned just before this.
However, in the first paragraph in the next section, "England 1928", "lycée", referring to the same school, appears, uncapitalized. I don't know whether they should both be capitalized or both be lower-case.CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just engaged in my first "edit war" (back-and-forth twice), in the article on Pánfilo de Narváez. I give up. I now turn to you to ask you to review the changes and edit summaries, and to referee.CorinneSD (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent edit to Burma which is largely an improvement, I saw the verb "institutionalize" used reflexively (it wasn't part of the actual edit; it was there already). Does that make sense to you? The government institutionalizing itself into politics.CorinneSD (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just started reading the article on Marshes. In the first sentence in the section "Types of marshes", is the word "different" necessary? Also, should the word "marsh" be singular: (a number of types of marsh)? Or should I just leave it? – CorinneSD (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the latest edit to Thomas Merton changing "made friends with" to "made friendships with"? To me, "made friendships with a circle of ...." doesn't sound right.CorinneSD (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, could you look at the last two edits to the article on Dill? The last one seems to be by an automated editor, but the one right before it deleted part of the article with a strange edit summary saying "Give it up, Wikicentral". But I can't see any good reason for that deletion.CorinneSD (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also look at the last group of edits to the article on Vietnam? Seems to be a bit too many links.CorinneSD (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you hyphenate "agreed upon" in the first paragraph in the section "Democratic transition" in the article on Bolivia? (I'm sorry, but I've forgotten how to create a link to a section in an article.)CorinneSD (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]