17
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − +
Talk:Bestiality and Britain (view source)
Revision as of 22:05, September 28, 2011
, 22:05, September 28, 2011→Pro Tip: removing uncivil remark
==Pro Tip==
==Pro Tip==
It's often a good idea for the content of an article to actually match the title. For example, this article is entitled ''Bestiality and Britain'' (which I gather is the beginning of an exciting new series on bestiality by geographic location). Yet the content (at the time this was written) consists largely of two block quotes. The first addressing religiosity in Britain. The second dealing with bestiality in Sweden (which is not part of the UK). You see the problem here? You never actually address the issue of Bestiality in Great Britain. Other than that, it's up to CP's usual high editing standards. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 02:06, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
It's often a good idea for the content of an article to actually match the title. For example, this article is entitled ''Bestiality and Britain'' (which I gather is the beginning of an exciting new series on bestiality by geographic location). Yet the content (at the time this was written) consists largely of two block quotes. The first addressing religiosity in Britain. The second dealing with bestiality in Sweden (which is not part of the UK). You see the problem here? You never actually address the issue of Bestiality in Great Britain. Other than that, it's up to CP's usual high editing standards. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 02:06, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::It is a Swedish news organization reporting on a British study. I suggest taking a reading comprehension course. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::It is a Swedish news organization reporting on a British study. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, a British study of what? Bestiality in Sweden, the UK, American Samoa? Your source doesn't say. Who conducted the study? What was the methodology? So I guess you consider some random Swedish news site, quoting an unnamed study, as a reliable source. If that's an acceptable sourcing standard for CP, I can think of a ton of improvements I can make around here. ;-) --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, a British study of what? Bestiality in Sweden, the UK, American Samoa? Your source doesn't say. Who conducted the study? What was the methodology? So I guess you consider some random Swedish news site, quoting an unnamed study, as a reliable source. If that's an acceptable sourcing standard for CP, I can think of a ton of improvements I can make around here. ;-) --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)