Talk:Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge

message: The source webpage states it is located in southeastern Indiana.  The article states it is in South Indiana, as if "South Indiana" is a proper noun that is in use.  Where is it located?  I am uncomfortable with the material in the article because it is stated that material is copied from a public domain text, but then the text is different and the differences are not sourced.
Another difference: The only source given in the article does not state what is the nearest city.  What is the source for saying that Madison is the nearest city?  Does it depend on your definition of city?  What are the incorporated cities in Indiana and adjacent states. doncram (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A new source, an article in Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, from 19 April 2006, is now cited in the article.  What does that article address?  It is not available to me, it is beyond a pay wall.  I don't understand, is this to support that the location is near to Fort Wayne or to Madison, or what?  I think you could quote from the article here, as a matter of fair use, to show what the purpose of citing it is. doncram (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It describes the location of the refuge as "near Madison in southeast Indiana". --W.marsh 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Now the article states it is located in "Southeast Indiana".  Is that a formal location, requiring a proper noun?  If it is, why not link to Southeast Indiana.  Shouldn't that be "southeast Indiana" or "southeastern Indiana". doncram (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no link to "Southeast Indiana". If you think "southeast" should be decapitalized, fine. It's just giving a basic geographic description. --W.marsh 02:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I am willing to buy "in southeast Indiana near Madison", without a separate source for that, because "near" is vague enough, and you have shown you can support it.  You or I will edit to drop that source, if it really only supporting that one point, okay?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 02:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I somewhat agree.  It could be improved by writing statements in your own words, to be able to drop the quotes and references where the exact quote is not really necessary to support a point.  It would also help to get other real sources for the article, to get some photos, to write a real article. doncram (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My enthusiasm for doing those things has been decreased by your hair-splitting over sources for whether this is in "southeast" or "Southeast" Indiana. --W.marsh 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that was hair-splitting.  However, the overall tag on the article advertised that it was badly sourced, in that it was copied from a website.  It is better to write your own article with proper referencing from the beginning, keeping track of which material is a quote by using quote marks, and so on.  Going back later to attempt to insert proper referencing is what is painful. doncram (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of refuge