Talk:University of Calgary scientist Keith cracks carbon capture conundrum

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contacted Professor Keith via email to ask about commercialisation. Will update upon response. 19:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Inline external links[edit]

The body of an article should not have any links to external sites. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that in the style guide? - Amgine | t 20:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't it can be arranged. ;-) I hate to see people encouraged to leave without reading the full Wikinews article. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It only links to some of the source material.

External links give better search rankings and higher reader loyalty but if it's against WikiNews style it can be removed Netscr1be (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I was still doing archiving backlog I formulated a fairly standard arrangement for an article and some basic rules for where things go in an article. Inline links to external sites was one of the things I came to really dislike; partly because of the ugly little symbol to denote they're not a WMF site, partly because people leave potentially with no route back to Wikinews. This is in the archiving conventions, and if it isn't in the style guide then I should probably figure out how to incorporate it there. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The aesthetics of the external link symbol aside (there's always room for improvement) I don't understand "people leave potentially with no route back to Wikinews." A lot of people now open links in a new tab or a new window so technically they haven't _left_ the site. Their path back is as simple as closing the new page which generally returns them to the last open tab/window and most of the time that will be where they came from. Others can just use the back button. I thought the point of links (internal/external) was to increase the reader's overall understanding of what they are reading. If they don't come back to the linking page that probably says more about the content than anything else.

The alliterative title[edit]

I don't really much like it... too forced... Can we have a nice normal title? Cary Bass (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on;), how can't you like "cracks carbon capture conundrum"! It's four word alliteration man! Four word! Gopher65talk 21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Five - remember it starts with Keith. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With Keith, carbon and capture in the headline it is hard to avoid alliteration. I'd appreciate your criticism more if it came with a suggested solution. :) 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As an absolutely adorable affliction, alliteration is endemic among even academic journalistas. - Amgine | t 22:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
are you implying I'm an academic journalista (whatever that is :> )?? Netscr1be (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh... no, just remembering some of my profs. - Amgine | t 02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

With all the comments I thought this would be reviewed by now. Is there something I'm missing that's holding that up? 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision 703307 of this article has been reviewed by Amgine (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: It would have been nice to have a section addressing carbon sequestration, but might make the article too long/encyclopedic. Drawing a bit much from the press release - not a neutral source - but verifiable and reasonably NPOV. Good article. Thanks! - Amgine

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 703307 of this article has been reviewed by Amgine (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: It would have been nice to have a section addressing carbon sequestration, but might make the article too long/encyclopedic. Drawing a bit much from the press release - not a neutral source - but verifiable and reasonably NPOV. Good article. Thanks! - Amgine

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Photo[edit]

I'm none too sure we can claim fair use on the photo. It appears to be from the UofC's newsletter/news site so technically they could be considered a competing agency. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikinews consider any PR/Communications agency/department that publishes a newsletter/web site a 'competing agency' then? This seems overly broad.
In this case this copy of the photo came from the professor's own web site. Not a great photo but the story referred to the tower and that was the best image of it. Netscr1be (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Calgary_scientist_Keith_cracks_carbon_capture_conundrum&oldid=704536"