Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification

WikiProject Missing Encyclopedic articles (% done)
Project page—The goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other encyclopedia. Sign in!
Monthly focus: MacTutor biographies 66 left
1911 verification: 11.2%
ACF Regionals answers: 0%
Hotlist of topics: 85.9%
General topics: 79.6%
Science topics: 92%
Catholic Encyclopedia: 86.2%
Easton's Bible Dictionary: 88%
Encyclopaedia Biblica : 69.5%
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: 80.6%
Gutenberg authors : 57.1%
Jewish Encyclopedia : 39%
Literary Encyclopedia: 81.9%
List of Poles: 6%
Find-A-Grave: 85.1%
Stanford Archive answers 97.9%
Missing paintings 44%
Miscellaneous
Many other lists of politicians, songs, TV shows and others.
Overall progress: 65.2%
Spread the word through {{Project missing articles}}

For the sub-project and how to cite EB1911, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica.

This project’s sub-pages have lists of Wikipedia articles that were included in the original listing of article topics, and may have inadequate or outdated information. They seemed to correspond with entries in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition, or once had a {{1911}} or {{EB1911}} reference template added. Many of these Wikipedia articles contain copies of the century-old text and, while the 1911 Encyclopaedia was one of the most complete encyclopedias of its era, it has become dated as territories have changed, technology improved and prevailing attitudes have changed. In addition, some of the Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition entries may have been loaded into Wikipedia based on uncritical use of available online copies, which may themselves have suffered from scanning errors, the insertion of inauthentic text, or wholesale deletions.

Editors can help on three fronts: verification, citation updates, and general reference notation.

Verification

Since the main project's activity in 2006, incremental changes by Wikipedia editors have fixed many of the issues outlined in this section. You will occasionally find an error to be fixed, but they are now much less common than they were. Ideally, though, these steps should still be taken because a small number of errors can still be found.

If the article contains verbatim text from the Encyclopaedia, it may need some basic copy-editing. Try to use an authentic copy, such as that at archive.org, for reference.

First, check for scanning errors. The original scans were if good quality, but there are occasional mistakes and garbled text, and often missing diacritics. Sometimes, a footnote in the original book was included as part of the article that happened to be at the bottom of the page. Compare with a good-quality scan to be sure.

Next, be alert for outdated information, or inappropriate point of view, and edit boldly. If you feel that the article is still in serious need of updating, include the template {{Update-EB}} in the main page or talk page.

Attributions

If the article contains verbatim text from the Encyclopaedia, it's important to acknowledge the source explicitly to avoid plagiarism charges.

• If it is, in large part, substantially a copy of the original, include a standalone notation in the References section. You should add a heading of the form ;Attribution, and then use the {{EB1911}} template with parameters (see below).
• If it has multiple sources but contains isolated sentences substantially copied from the Encyclopaedia, mark them with a <ref> tag containing the {{EB1911}} template with an inline=1 parameter. This will make the footnote text explain that it’s a copy.

Citations

If the Wikipedia article does not contain verbatim text, but does contain statements that rely on the Encyclopaedia as an authority, use the {{Cite EB1911}} template with appropriate parameters, either in a <ref> or in the References section.

Further reading

If the Wikipedia article needs neither attribution nor citation, but you think the Encyclopaedia article is interesting for additional (particularly historical) insight, then add an entry to Further Reading or External Links:

• If the Encyclopaedia article exists in the Wikisource copy, then use the {{EB1911 poster|ArticleName}} template, with the Wikisource article name as the only parameter.
• Otherwise use the {{Cite EB1911}} template.

Template parameters

Both the {{EB1911}} and {{Cite EB1911}} templates should be used with the appropriate parameters:

• wstitle= if the Encyclopaedia article is in Wikisource, else title=. For the importance of adding at least a title/wstitle parameter, see this category page.
• display= if the Wikisource title is not the same as the title in the printed Encyclopaedia (for example, if Wikisource includes a disambiguation tag)
• inline=1 if necessary (see Attributions above)
• optionally, volume=, which you can get from the Wikisource index
• optionally, page= or pages=, which you can only get from a scan of the printed book, such as at archive.org.

Using EB1911 as a supplementary source

There are some rare cases where you can add EB1911 text to an existing article. If you don't want to do so immediately, you can use one of these templates in the article's main page or talk page (and mark it done in these lists):

• {{Ni-eb}}: seriously deficient, and could be improved with a transfusion of 1911 text
• {{Include-eb}}: basically sound, but could usefully have 1911 text added to it

Eventually, tagged articles should be fixed. They can be found in Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates or Category:Articles needing improvement from EB1911. When the article has been fixed, the template can be removed. It would be polite to leave a note on the talk page.

Update the lists

Finally, when an article has been checked, edit the appropriate subpage: remove the {{search}} template and add a note after the trailing hyphen. This will help with automatic calculation of the statistics. It's possible we will want to do another review pass, so lines should not be deleted, but articles can be considered done when they have been basically checked for accuracy and appropriateness, and have at least one of the 1911 templates.

See the guidelines at the project page for detailed instructions on creating new articles.

Alphabetical listing

Letter	Pages	Initial	Remaining	% completed
A	1 2 3 4 5	2430	2213	9%
B	1 2 3	1198	0	100%
C	1 2 3 4	1888	1855	2%
D	1 2	734	415	43%
E	1 2	942	932	1%
F	1 2 3	1048	1012	3%
G	1 2 3	1227	1197	2%
H	1 2 3	1094	1063	3%
I	1	247	240	3%
J	1 2 3 4 5	2147	2058	4%
K	1 2	540	535	1%
L	1 2	948	914	4%
M	1 2 3	1217	1197	2%
N	1	454	447	2%
O	1	334	322	4%
P	1 2 3	1317	1281	3%
Q	1	59	9	85%
R	1 2	823	813	1%
S	1 2 3	1245	1227	1%
T	1 2	977	965	1%
U	1	94	0	100%
V	1	361	346	4%
W	1 2	746	727	3%
X-Z	1	202	0	100%
Wrong'uns	Suggestions for non-inclusion	-	-	-
Totals		22,272	19,768	11.2%

See also

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Archive 4#Reviewing 1911