User talk:Kayz911

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'd be glad to be your mentor. If you have any questions at all, just ask. How's it going so far? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting started

Hello, Kayz911. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The result will look like this:

Hello! – VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, back! – VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I love talking to myself! – VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree! – VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In case you would like to start looking at some of the code behind an article, you may look at a recent article I wrote entitled William Charles Osman Hill, which is about one of the leading primate taxonomists of the 20th century. First, before entering edit mode, look over the structure of the article. Ignoring some of the complex things, like the big infobox that contains his photo, look for simple thing that you want to learn how to do. Next, select the option to edit and see if you can find the code that you wanted to learn. You can always highlight and copy it, and then paste it on your user page so that you can play with it safely without changing the actual article on accident. (Be sure to not submit and save your changes to articles until you feel comfortable about how to do so. And if if you do accidentally mess something up, someone will probably come around and fix it rather quickly, so don't worry too much.) I'll tell you now that referencing is both the most important and most challenging part of editing. Don't worry about that this week, though. When it comes time to talk about referencing, I'll be there to walk you through it. For now, let's just make sure that you can add bold, italics, and wikilinks. Again, if you have questions, just ask. And remember, asking questions will give you experience by requiring you to format an answer on a talk page. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Article idea

We can discuss this here so that you don't have to wade through my busy talk page to find the discussion.

There certainly is a need for a general article entitled Nuclear policy of the United States. (However, such a general article would need to cover the full history and require extensive resources coverage and time commitment.) Otherwise, enhancing the Nuclear Power 2010 Program article sounds fairly reasonable, as long as you can keep it neutral and cover criticisms as well. (Remember, we have to stay neutral.) I'm more than willing to help guide you through the article clean-up/expansion. The only concern I have is that one of your assignments requires nominating the article for Did You Know (DYK). As it stands, the article is quite long, so the odds of doing the required 5x expansion is very unlikely. You might want to talk to your instructor about this. If it's still okay, I don't see why you couldn't completely re-vamp the article and eventually nominate it for good article assessment (GAN).

One possibility to get a DYK and nominate an article for GAN is to create short stub of 1,500 characters or more for Nuclear policy of the United States (the parent article), nominate it for DYK, and then spend the rest of your time working on Nuclear Power 2010 Program. If you and your instructor are fine with this, let me know before you start the parent article. DYK rules are strict and very sensitive to timing, so I need to make sure your work will qualify. Either way, just let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright thanks for the feedback. Yes, I agree, neutrality, unbiased sources, and equally weighted criticism (on both sides) is the only thing I would ever include. I'll check with my teacher in the coming week on the DYK process. Either way we go here, be it the NP 2010 Program page or "Nuclear policy of the United States" I could easily do I believe. Also I don't think a 5x expansion will be an issue for myself. Although I have focused more on the current nuclear policy, I am quite well versed in historical US nuclear policy as well. But again, I will check and see if this DYK process will be a problem before I embark (rather than later coming back to bite me). And yes, I would absolutely appreciate and welcome any input, feedback and criticisms on anything I submit. Also with the Nomination, GAN and DYK processes which I am currently under-informed upon. Thanks, Kayz

Actually, the Nuclear Power 2010 Program article is shorter than I remember it to be, and it currently comes to ~5,000 characters in length (excluding references). Therefore, if you think you can develop it to more than 15,000 characters in your sandbox, then you'll be able to nominate the article for DYK when the time comes. The broader Nuclear policy of the United States article will require a lot of references and would probably be a very large article. But I don't want to discourage you from it because we need more people writing those general articles. Either way, you will have my full support, in the form of coding, clean-up, guidance, and (modest) copy-editing. Once the decision is official, let me know. I will then offer suggestions on where and how to get started.

Also, don't forget to sign your replies on talk pages. At the end of typing your reply, type: ~~~~ The Wiki software will automatically translate it into a signature. You don't need to put ~~~~ in the edit summary because it will not be translated. Just use the edit summary to write a very short summary of what you wrote or the changes you made. For talk pages, I usually just say "re:" or "reply". Edit summaries are far more important when editing articles. And don't forget to practice indenting, discussed in the post above. I've indented your reply for you so that you can see how it's done. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello again! after speaking with my teacher, we have decided that I have enough information to compile the larger "Nuclear policy of the United States" He believes it would be more significant and important to policy analysis than the smaller article. So in the coming weeks I will start writing it up in my sandbox. Are there any suggestions, comments, feedback at this point before I begin this large article? Also should I be liberally tying in other nuclear article's information into this larger one, or should I be mostly compiling my own cited research? Thanks for all your help and advise so far Visionholder! Kayz911 (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on selecting an article. I'm actually very glad to see you select the broader article. What I would suggest may not sound terribly novel to a grad student. First, you will want to plan out the structure of the article first. Once you've created that outline in your sandbox (using headings and subheadings) and provided some notes about the contents of each section, let me know and I'll provide some feedback. After that, it will be time to hit your sources and start filling in the sections and subsections with content. At that point you'll want to be comfortable with referencing. If you haven't learned about referencing, we'll want to spend some time covering that together before you start writing, otherwise it will create more work for you later. If you've got ideas for illustrations and stuff like that, I would suggest waiting until the text is done first. It makes things a lot easier.

As for tying in to other nuclear articles, that depends on how they relate to the article you're writing. In general, though, I would suggest ignoring the other articles at this point. Focus on your outline. We can link to those other articles later. By focusing on your outline first, it will help us determine what material we have and how it will fit into the context of these other articles. Hopefully that answers your question. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, after the midterm and break is over, I'll get started on that...well outlining is where it is at. I'll let you know when I have something more concrete. Thank Kayz911 (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello VisionHolder! I am currently about 90% completed with my section of the nuclear policy article in my sandbox. All my information is cited and I think it is pretty unbiased. The only parts I have left unfinish are public opinions of nuclear energy (I'm sticking to the facts of incidents in America), a small section on US perception of foreign nuclear incidents, and use of gallop polls. My deadline is Monday for a live submission (but can be edited after that). Take a look at my sandbox and let me know what you think. Also what scripting do i use to create a info box on the top right hand area around the pictures like many pages have?Kayz911 (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You've got an excellent start on the article! I think you've done a good job referencing, creating sections, and dividing the material into sections. In regards to the infobox, I couldn't find another U.S. policy article that uses one, based off what I found at Public policy of the United States. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has one, but that's designed for laws passed by government, not a general policy. So for now, you may have to forget about an infobox. That happens. For instance, my article Subfossil lemur doesn't have an infobox, but that didn't stop me from using a related image in the upper right-hand corner.

First of all, once you're done writing we'll need to standardize your references. Not only are there templates (such as {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite journal}}) that we can use to help standardize them, but we'll also want to archive your web references. I've noticed already that one of your links is dead: http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/publ_109-058.pdf You can archive links through WebCite, but we'll do that after you clean up the references. I suggest a slightly different method of handling references to make them more organized and the text easier to read when editing. It's called list defined references (LDR). If you'd like, I can convert your article to use LDR and even format a couple of citations for you so that you can see how it's done. If that's alright, just let me know and I'll do it this weekend.

We also need to clarify the beginning of the article. This article will officially be named "Nuclear policy of the United States", correct? If so, don't worry about using it as a heading. That will automatically change once you move the article from your sandbox into the main Wiki space. To me, it looks like the first heading could be changed from "Nuclear policy of the United States" to "History" or maybe broken up into "Atomic Energy Act of 1949", "First Nuclear Age", and "Second Nuclear Age". Then before you use any headers, I'd write a lead to introduce the article. Simply introduce the article: "The Nuclear policy of the United States..." and go on to summarize the content of the article. Citations are generally not needed in the lead as long as the content is mentioned and sourced in the body. For now it can be short. Once the article has fully developed, you can go back and summarize later. But at least give the article an introductory sentence.

You might also have to consolidate a little bit on the headers. Depending on how you break up the first section, you might be able to group subheadings by decade or years between major legislation. Either way, avoid using <big>...</big> tags. The proper header will be sufficient.

Lastly, we'll have to address the use of images. It's great that you found some images to use and even got people to approve the use of them on Wikipedia. However, the appropriate process for doing that is a bit more formal and usually occurs on WikiCommons, not on Wikipedia. (Any images or video uploaded to WikiCommons can be linked to exactly the same way as you have been. You don't have to change the code.) However, we will need to upload the images there using the appropriate options, and then following the procedure for OTRS. I do it all the time, so I can help with that. However, you will need to contact the person giving permission to use the image and request a formal release. An example is given on the OTRS link. Without doing this, the image on Wikipedia will be deleted when an admin discovers it. The public domain image, assuming that's the correct license, will be fine, but should also be uploaded to WikiCommons so that if your article is translated to another language for another Wiki, then the image can be used there as well. Again, I can help you there. If we can address most or all of these issues, I think you will have a beautifully prepared article ready when it's time to go live. Again, I'll be around this weekend and trying to watch your page. Please keep me posted, and if we need, we can try to coordinate a time to work together or even chat on IRC. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, a lot to take in there! I noticed there was a different format for most pages Ref's, but my teacher was pretty lost and told me to just click to ref button. Figures that is why I have a big blob of ref. Absolutely, any way to make it easier to read is good in my book and if you have a program or ideas on a way to do that, that would be awesome. Thanks for the heads up on the link, it was to a PDF of the 2005 Energy Act legislation, I found a new link and replaced it. I'll get on the headers, and yes the Main header of "Nuclear policy of the United States" should be taken out, I left it as a reference. I will also write up a lead in, should be no major problem. Also the picture stuff, I am completely lost on that, one look though the licensing process and I was gone. Regardless I can email her the link to sign I just need to know how to do that in the commons and what option that is under. If you walk me though the process, I can get that done in no time. I have put pretty much finished all the writing I can for now, so the editing process is what we have left. So I would absolutely be willing to arrange a time to talk with you. Sunday the 27th, I am completely free all day and night, so if you have some time, maybe we could chat and get a few kinks worked out! I am on EST in the United States if that helps you (or just use the 24hr clock). I also have a skype account if that is more preferable than the Wiki one, but either is fine with me. Thanks again for all your help! I look forward to submitting the article! :-) Kayz911 (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about feeling lost. That's what I'm here for. All of these things I learned the hard way over the course of many months... without a mentor, and usually by having my stuff deleted. Once I get back from volunteering this afternoon, I will start playing with your references. The organization that I'll do will only need to be done once (by me), but it will give you a template if you plan to stay on Wiki and continue contributing once your class is done. (And I hope you do.) I will convert a few of your references to use the cite templates, and watch for <!-- ... --> in the code—these are comments that are invisible to ordinary readers. I will make them to help walk you through. For the licensing stuff, here's what you do: Email the person and request that they send you the image in email along with the statement: "I release the attached image under CC-BY-SA and GFDL." Next, you go to WikiCommons and choose the option to upload a file, and select the option "...from somewhere else." Fill the form out as you did on Wikipedia, but on the "Permission" line, use "{{OTRS pending|month=March|day=26|year=2011}}" (adjust the date to the day you do the upload). For the license, just select "Attribution ShareAlike 3.0". Finally, forward the email with the release to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. That's it. I will clean up the licensing and put in the request to delete the image you uploaded to Wiki. As long as you name the file the same as you did on Wiki, you won't need to update your code. However, I should note that although the graphic is very nice, we'll want to come up with a caption that is encyclopedic. Graphics aren't used to decorate, but to inform. Before going through all of the uploading and other stuff, let's make sure this graphic has a place in the document. If not, I'm sure we can find pictures of nuclear facilities, pictures of key legislators, etc. on WikiCommons. Lastly, tomorrow, 27 March 2011 works perfectly for me. I'm also free all day. If you don't use IRC (which is a pain to learn and set up), then I also use Skype. My username is lemur_guy. I may sleep in a bit, but otherwise I should be online all day. I am also on EST in the U.S. Just ring me. I'll talk to you then! – VisionHolder « talk » 13:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

well in that case, we might not even need the picture then. I'm sure we can find something. Alright, I'll talk to you more tomorrow. My Skype address is the same as my UN here kayz911. I won't be up early either, but I'll look for you online, and we can talk more about what is needed for this tomorrow! thanks for all you help man! Kayz911 (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. As you may have noticed, I've made a few changes to the article—mostly structural changes. I've also added you to my Skype contacts. Just ring me once you see me log in. If you want, you can play with the cite templates beforehand. It's up to you. Anyway, don't mind me... I've had a bit to drink tonight. I'll talk to you tomorrow. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, I found a closely related article on Wiki called Nuclear power in the United States a few minutes ago. It doesn't appear to mention "nuclear policy", but there could be some overlap. Therefore, we'll need to make sure the overlap is minimal and the articles agree on the facts. If anything, it might offer sources that could be helpful for your "policy" article. Sorry I didn't find this earlier. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

alright, it is done, I moved the page. I feel a bit anxious actually now! I know I haven't finished all the refs but I will get to that soon, I expanded some of the policies with new refs (and I correctly did that in the way you showed me, including the achieve page) and wrote a lead in. Also submitted to the DYK for March 27th. I Finally emailed Eric Draper (the guy who owned the picture), so I hope to hear from him soon. Take a look at what is there on the page. Also I might need a refresh again on what is needed to do a redirect of the lowercase P in "policy" vs. the current uppercase P in "Policy." So let me know if everything looks good, I should be online a bit later tomorrow evening.Kayz911 (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The WikiPen For writing a strong first draft of Nuclear policy of the United States, I award you The WikiPen. Keep up the good work! Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good job! The article is an excellent start. Let me know when you're ready to start cleaning up the content and adding images. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nuclear policy of the United States

Hello! Your submission of Nuclear policy of the United States at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see new note on DYK talk page. Yoninah (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kayz911. You have new messages at Marrante's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your edits, this is a working draft because I have been on deadline to make something live for this Wiki-university based class. Therefor, I am still having to format sources, and of course run copy edits. I have only written for the English speaking audience, so I honestly did not think of writing for an international audience with the multiple meanings of words such as "post". But I will review it and look for words of that nature. So I will keep that in mind. Honestly, I was told at the last second that I was suppose to write a lead in. Please forgive me, this is the first major article that I have written and first ever lead in. My mentor and I will review it in the next day or so.

As for your content criticisms, I think you might be mistaken about the focus on this page, and it could be because of my lead. This is NOT about the NRC's governing practices (that's left to the NRC page), I only hope to reference what the legislation hopes the NRC will implement. This wiki is about the federal governing polices (i.e. legislation) that mandates what the NRC, DOE, EPA is suppose to be doing (politics vs. bureaucracy). Therefore this does not include if the NRC is doing a good job implementing the regulations, if their employees are corrupt, etc. as for public opinion not shaping policy, I think I can use a better structure here to fix this. Such as, shaped by both public and private interests. I was not saying that the nuclear industry did not have a state in the drafting, obviously not as we all can see, simply that they were included under in the public opinion.

However, criticisms of the legislation is appropriate here (though some pages of the actual legislation go more in dept), as long as the source that criticizes the legislation is legitimate. I included one criticism in my article form the Washington post on the Energy Policy Act of 2005. If someone would come along and wish to add to that, I would be very interested in what they come up with. I have considered including more, but I have fought my environmentalist tendencies, and kept the information from government sources, actual legislation, and major sites in the field...excluding the Chernobyl incident debate (which it has a lot and is best left to it's own Wiki page), I feel confident that the information is accurate from my years in understanding Federal Nuclear Policy. If you feel that anything is inaccurate, my mentor and I will amend it.

Once again, thank you for your feadback and taking the time out of your day to really give some solid improvements, I hope to have this finished by Friday or Saturday at the latest. I know you didn't have to do it, but I appreciate it all the same. Also, with the copy and source, would you be willing to check it over once I finish it? Be well Kayz911 (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

P.s. on a completely side note, not official note...If I had 1$ for every time a person in the NRC left (for various unsavory "favors" in the agency) to have a cushy job in the nuclear sector, I would be a very wealthy man. And if you add politicians that supported the prescription drugs that were hired later by the drug lobby, as I recently learned from a report by NPR, I would be a filthy rich! The NRC has really been dragging their feet on the implementation of regulations lately. I am very afraid that it could lead to some serious problems in the future

I've seen this mistake before. Articles are not "wikis". Wikipedia is a wiki. I have still not read the entire article, but quickly began to realize it was about policy and not practice. What caught my attention was the hook (even without the NRC reference in it), that the nuclear industry is the most regulated one there is. That is just something I would never say, although it may be true from a policy point of view. In the real world, such a statement is as superficial as talking about the "current economic recovery". It may be superficially true when looking at certain statistics, but most people aren't feeling it. Most people are out there where there are home foreclosures, falling housing prices and job loss. Talking about policy in a vacuum in an open forum like this can be highly misleading to those who aren't policy wonks. I think at the very least, there should be a substantial "see also" section with links to articles like Regulatory capture that make it clear what that policy looks like once it leaves the theoretical realm. I will continue to look at the article and offer any suggestions that come to mind. I'm glad you found the feedback useful. Marrante (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I have made the changes in the copy and references that should be enough to pass the DYK. people review it and see if they are correct. I will look more in dept in the coming days on the best location for something of the regulatory capture nature. I am thinking of adding another section that it would be perfect to, but until the Japan crisis is over, that might have to be put on the back burner. Either way, I have two people I'm going to be working with that are professional in both sides of the Nuclear isle. I think that will polish off the government basis that you were referring. I just have to work on their schedule for that info. Thanks againKayz911 (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick note on that "post" business. I should have been more clear about what I meant. I thought that your usage was awkward, but the word is fine, if the context is right. Postwar, for example, is perfectly understandable. I think in most instances, though, when you use it to mean "after", that you want a hyphen in there, unless the usage is well-known and established, as in "postwar". There are other cases of ambiguities like that, such as "email" meaning enamel in French and German. This is why I support the use of a hyphen in that word. More later. Marrante (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I figured the source on the quote was the same as the one listed later, but I feel that if you have something in quotes, at the end of the sentence (or sooner), you need to have a reference. Regarding the ton / tonne business, there may well be a difference, though I wasn't really thinking about it. Mostly, an article should just be consistent with spelling, dates, etc., so it's US or UK. I was trying to think what the spelling had been, but I couldn't think of any of the telltale words, so I just nixed the -ne in ton. I can't write with UK spelling because I'll be okay for a sentence or two, but then I forget and slip, so if it's an article I'm expanding substantially, I just change it all. Otherwise, I do my best and write little. However, I just left two dates on your article that are probably not right. I put them on the external link. My feeling is that English is month-day-year, anything else is Newspeak to me. You should change them to match the rest. Marrante (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks I saw that, I updated it, your right it is a quote, I updated it to show that ref. The changes look good, and the pictures are fitting a little better. I think the tonnes to tons are alright I put them in a link just in case. As for the dates in the refs, that was a deliberate move. I am also used to that format that you are saying (although there is no official uniform correct version unless your using MPA or APA etc), however I was told by my mentor as well as others including our on campus wikipedia ambassador and teacher that we are to follow wikipedia's example for date, which is DD-MONTH-YYYY. Which as you can see when you sign a post on here, it does it in that format as well. So i am hesitant to change any of that because of what I have been told...Kayz911 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own rules, however, say that any one of several formats can be used, the traditional Month-day-year or as shown on the time stamps or year first, day and month. The only stipulation is when to use a comma and when not. They're fussy about that and that every article should be consistent within itself. So, really, you're on very safe ground to use the month-day-year format. Marrante (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough and good to know. I won't have the time to re-formate all 30 links to the alternative M-D-Y format for a while, I got too many other things I have to do right now. Maybe in a few weeks, when I add to the article, I'll change that...regardless the current dates should be sufficient for the DYK process acceptance.Kayz911 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is also a very useful little template when you're having an extended discussion. I have suggested 2 new hooks at DYK, which I think (hope?) will be acceptable to you and VisionHolder. The article is fine, otherwise, but I cannot, in good conscience, approve something that glosses over the inherent risks of nuclear energy with a veneer of policy assurances. Policy and practice are unfortunately sometimes very far apart and in this case, that distance can translate into many lives lost. Marrante (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The third alt is fine, I actually like that a lot because now there is a way to put in a picture from my article into the hook. Although a large chunk of that cost came from Three Mile Island, and many incidents were quite small, the information is publicly available and I feel confident that my three sources can back up that figure. Good work!Kayz911 (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In writing a good hook, there are a few things to keep in mind. One, shorter is better. The maximum is 200 characters, including spaces. A hook also needs to be "punchy," or as the good folks on DYK like to say, "hooky" (a word they really ought to abandon, imo). You absolutely have to keep this in mind, or you will end up with a piddling few dozen or hundred instead of thousands of page hits. Talking about reputed great regulation was likely to be ho-hum except to the already-interested. But bring a bit of failure and a large sum of money into it, and suddenly you've got people's attention. It actually took me over three hours to come up with that and unfortunately, it was time I didn't really have, but your article will do better as a result and my goal of finding a way to accurately present the industry was reached. Yes, the actual fact does not evenly distribute the impact or cost, but I noted one of your sources said that nuclear accidents tended to be the most expensive. This is the crux of the problem, that when those things do have accidents, the bad ones are catastrophic. Marrante (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Very true, when nuclear goes wrong, it has the potential of going really wrong and now will be backed by tax payers up to 2 billion. Alright I despise Coal plants, I can give them one thing, they don't blow up and irradiate people (they just contaminate the water and air). Yes, it was a very well though out hook, got both sides in there perfectly, I'm sorry it took you so long though, regardless, I do appreciate it...your effort does show well in the product I do believe. I will drop you a message when i add the last section of the page. If these people I'm working with do not get on the ball soon, I might just have to do it all myself. but we shall see what comes of it. Thanks again.Kayz911 (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Template links

Here are the links to the main citation templates:

• {{Cite book}}
• {{Cite journal}}
• {{Cite web}} – (use this for web news as well)
• {{Cite news}}
• {{Cite video}}
• {{Citation}} ... when all else fails

There are more, but those are the ones I use the most. I recommend keeping the body of the article clean of reference code, and thus using list defined references (LDR). (This results in all references being listed under the "References" section.) You may use your own article as an example. When books or large sources are used, I usually create a "Literature cited" subsection under "References" and list these large sources there, while also using the ref = harv parameter in the citation templates. This allows me to use more advanced references (call "short footnotes") for those sources. The template for short footnotes is:

• {{Sfn}}

And as always, I strongly recommend archiving your online sources (excluding Google Books and the like) on something like WebCite (see this). Hope this helps. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proofreading & clean-up

As an example, I have started reading through the article and cleaning things up as an example for the rest of the article. Starting from the newly renamed "Background" section, I made it to the end of "Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and NRC governing laws". Be sure to check the cumulative edit history to see the kinds of things I fixed. We could probably add a picture of Dwight D. Eisenhower and provide a caption about his role in the legislation. You'll also need to provide more details on some the lists you give, where you end with "and many other activities" or "and much more". These leave the reader wondering, and anyway, they may deserve a mention in the article. As your DYK nominator pointed out, you don't want to say "Also explained in this article..." in the lead. The lead is just a summary, not an introduction. I apologize if I mislead you. As an example, just read the lead for any article I've written, and then (if you have time) compare that to what's in the body. As long as you only summarize cited material, you won't need references in the lead. Lastly (for now), make sure everything is cited as we discussed on Skype. Once you're done proof-reading, let me know and I'll go over the entire article. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Quoting government pages

When fixing a few links earlier, I had to go back to your sources to try to determine what "compacts" referred to. Little did I realize, the information in the article was verbatim from the source. We're okay since this is a government website, but the quotes need to be cited as quotes properly. (I hope this only happened with government documents. If this happened with any other non-government sources, you will need to go back and paraphrase.) Anyway, I've made changes for the NRC quotes using {{Include-USGov}} and an additional style of footnotes. If there are any others like it, please let me know and we'll get it fixed up. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty much from the government docs, which is public info, and I was instructed in the class take the info from the sources and cite it here, especially on legislation to prevent biased sources and opinions, but to link to the docs and cite it as such. The info from the 2005 energy act is pretty much the same as the World-Nuclear site. However, it's a summary from the legislation, you can check it out and we can either change it or not. I'm going to have to revise the Chernobyl part to paraphrase it then. I'll get on that.

ok I paraphrased the Chernobyl accident. Excluding one section on the actual damage report in "nuclear talk" which I put quotation marks over it and cited the source like it already ways. So for that section it should be good to go other than some copy corrections. As for ALL the sections leading up to the 2nd nuclear age, all the materials is open info to the public. I honestly forgot that World Nuclear was not a public source. Thanks for spotting that man, I feel like idiot for forgetting that the World-Nuclear site was not public info, it's that stupid .org thing that always screws me up. Anyway, the overview of the Energy Policy act is something that we might have to work on. I'm thinking it was also on a gov site, but we might have to change that even though it's a summary from the actual legislation (it will not be too hard if we need to). The only other sections that had info from World-Nuclear is on the Implementation, a small part of the Three Mile Island (which i think is fine), and of course Chernobyl. So check it out and let me know Alex. The only other source I think (I'll have to look more tomorrow) that follows what you said is from the Encyclopedia of Earth sources, which they state that "all text is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license." I won't be around this weekend, but I will be back Sunday and around a bit tomorrow morning/afternoon. Hopefully my changes should be enough, and if not, we will figure it outKayz911 (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC) PS. We had a guy add some great info on Japan and the public response, I check it out, all legit!

Excellent. I've moved his references to the "References" section, but we will still want to archive his new sources. (Yes, you are ahead of the game on Wikipedia for using WebCite.) We also have to be careful about this new section growing out of proportion. As protests gain momentum, the article could quickly become flooded with reports of every single protest around the country, with each anti-nuclear group tooting its own horn and looking for free publicity on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I'm not sure how to use text directly from "Encyclopedia of Earth" assuming they do have a CC-BY-SA license on their text. That's something we'll have to look into. By practice, though, I always suggest paraphrasing when possible. Not only do you not have to worry about these kinds of things, but then you can shape the text more easily, making it flow more smoothly from section to section. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Good deal man, alright, did you see what he added to extra readings? Some of the data i cited, but many of the extra readings are biased, but most of them are not use in the article. Also, I know Warren Buffet is a major figure in the United States, but do you think it appropriate here? I personally agree with the statement, and I think he would be one of the most knowledgeable figure in the Private Sector. But, I think we should keep an eye out for less reputable sources we definitely should keep an eye on the page for Non-profit piling crap on there. Btw, thanks for sticking up for the image! When I get back on Skype soon, you must tell me about what happened. But I'll keep an eye out for the page on the front page. So I guess the next part is moving to the Good article submission for the class part. But good luck moving, we will talk soon man, don't pull anything now ;-) Kayz911 (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK update

I've had to fight to make sure they didn't omit the image with your DYK hook (which gives it more visibility), but at this point it looks like your DYK hook will be on the main page Saturday night (7 April) around 9:00pm EST per the DYK queue data. Hopefully I'll have my computer hooked back up by that point following my move that day. I can't wait to see it. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

AWESOME!!! Wouldn't have been there without your help manKayz911 (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

hey Alex, I when your done moving, we should talk about what needs to be done to improve the article for atleast a B rating, if not the GA status for the class (featured later I suppose). With what people have added, it might not need much more than an extended lead in...though the thought of editing all these people's sources is making me a little blue lol :-p Kayz911 (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just unpacking, and will be both today and tomorrow. Just ring me on Skype, and if I miss you, I'll call you back as soon as I notice. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Alex, a guy suggested moving to page to (and did move it) to "Nuclear power policy of the United States" because he felt it was not common knowledge that Nuclear Weapons were not part of the policy/legislative process (v.s Executive). I tend to think it's pretty straight forward that weapons are not part of Policy (and included a See Also for it). Do you have any feedback on this move and also if it should be "power" vs. "energy." I'm putting it out to a few people, what do you think? Kayz911 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nuclear Policy of the United States

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that the traffic stats are back online, so it's finally possible to see how your article did when it was on the main page. Very respectable number, though not breaking the magical 5,000. The most efficient way to do that is to insert the words "Britney Spears" or "Adolf Hitler" in the hook, though working them in can be problematic. Congratulations on your WP success! Marrante (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, atleast I can sleep welling knowing that I did not have to sell my soul with the words Justin Bieber in it just to get a few hits. Still happy with 3.1k though. I think the your re-vamped hook and the then tied in picture really helped out :-) Kayz911 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

3,100 is a very respectable number. My first was only 2,700 and I once had one with 23 hits! I thought I was seeing things. There are some topics that are more prone to getting attention and without a doubt, the way the hook is written has an impact. I sure learned my lesson with the article that got 23 hits. I come from an advertising background and knew better, but somehow underestimated the yawn factor of the hook that was picked. My personal goal is anything with four digits (well, actually 5, but I've yet to achieve that) and my secondary goal is to get a continuing "bounce" (usually just lasts for a second day) and can be close to 50% of the first day. Your traffic returned to normal, but your 3,100 is very respectable and I'd be perfectly happy with it. If you want to see something really impressive, check out the effect of getting a Google doodle. Charlie Chaplin got one yesterday and saw a perceptible [1] from it, which then spread to other comedians of his era, such as Harpo (stats) and Groucho Marx (stats) and Buster Keaton (stats). Most of the time, when these spikes occur, I have no idea where they came from, but the Google doodle ones are hard to miss. Marrante (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

on a side note, a guy suggested moving to page to (and did move it) to "Nuclear power policy of the United States" because he felt it was not common knowledge that Nuclear Weapons were not part of the policy/legislative process (v.s Executive). I tend to think it's pretty straight forward that weapons are not part of Policy (and included a See Also for it). Do you have any feedback on this move and also if it should be "power" vs. "energy" Kayz911 (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I put in my two cents, which I presume you've seen. Marrante (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Hi, Thanks for your detailed comments on Ascension of Jesus in Christian art. Could you please also move the whole text of the DYK and your approval/comments to the Template_talk:Did_you_know#Special_occasion_holding_area, so it can be used on June 2, 2011? The occasion is Feast of the Ascension which is on June 2nd 2011. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

not a problem, it was a good article. I just checked it, and it looks like it has been moved to the "Special occasion holding area" under June 2nd? If you find that you need that changed or something of that nature, please let me know. I've never had to do a special DYK date, so forgive my lack of knowledge on the topic, but if you outline what I need to do (assuming there is more), i'll be happy to go ahead and make that happen for you ;-) Kayz911 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, someone moved, it. Any way, Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: File:Atomic world.jpg

Hi there. I was just patrolling the new uploads and saw this. Do you think your friend would mind signing the form at WP:CONSENT and emailing it to OTRS. Because copyright is something that gets taken very seriously, other people might look at your rationale and decide that it isn't good enough, and place the file up for deletion. In case you or the image owner ever become unavailable and to prevent the image from being deleted, this might be a good idea. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 04:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know why it is still up? I thought my mentor at the time deleted it...I was going to use it in my article on the Nuclear Policy of the United States but this was before I knew what I was doing on wikipedia and realized that the image had to apply to the contents on the page. I honestly can pick up the phone right now and get the consent form emailed to me, but at this point I really don't see the point of it since we are not using the picture. At the time, I figured that Wikipedia was like every other rational site which would allow you to delete your own images, but then again, it was the first time our grad teacher used wikipedia so i'm blaming for his lack of advise. Is there anyway we can just get the picture removed, under the author and myself feeling like the image is no longer needed or something to that effect. I mean if i'm going to get flagged on this which could hurt me in the future, I'll just do it, but all the same, i'd move for it to be deleted personally...your thoughts?Kayz911 (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

hi!

Hi - I met you at the summit this weekend, and am just leaving comments on talk for everyone I met for future communication. Kevin (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Some resources for you

Hi Kasey! I enjoyed speaking with you at the Summit and working with you in the workshop. Chzz and I have made a page with some links to guides and resources to supplement the information we gave you at the workshop. You can find it at User:Chzz/gw. Feel free to ask either of us any questions you may come up with. Thanks, and good luck in the semesters to come! Also, I plan to look at Nuclear energy policy of the United States and see about the article class rating when I get a minute. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hey man! Good to hear from you! I added you just now. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Great meeting you

It was great meeting you at the conference! Hope you're doing well, and that you find another topic that captures your fancy as much as U.S. nuclear energy policy... Amanda (talk)

Re: GA Review

I don't do reviews that often, but I could take a look at yours. Can you link it from my talkpage? I'll try to get to it within the next few days (and if I won't, somebody else will - although GAN backlog is ~2 month now). Have you tried a hand at reviewing (another) article yourself? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Finally found the time to help you out: Talk:Nuclear energy policy of the United States/GA1. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)