A fact from American Writers: A Journey Through History appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 February 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
What was the rationale for this edit? The content removed was cited and taken from the official website and explained the criteria for selection of the writers. I strongly believe that this is an important component of this article. KConWiki (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if I put the exact same content back and just use quote marks instead of italicization will that satisfy the requirement? I mean, there was text that read "The stated criteria for selection were the following:" and then in-line-cited the approp page at the official site from which the content in question was taken. I don't want to paraphrase, because that will defeat the point of trying to document what the criteria were for selection of writers as subjects. KConWiki (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my suggestion would be simply add quotations marks around each phrase after a bullet point; I don't see a satisfactory way to do that around the bullet points as a whole. Sandy's right that we should add them, though, and I apologize on my end for not thinking of that as your reviewer. Like you, I imagine, I'm used to academic paper formats where indented, cited text identified as a quotation is automatically assumed to be a quotation, but I believe Sandy's correct that the Wikipedia MOS requires quotation marks even in such instances. (Don't think, though, that the above comment is any kind of assumption of bad faith on your part; it's an understandable mistake.) I'll reinsert the test formatted as I described here (hopefully not committing a second MOS error as I do so); if that's not satisfactory, Sandy, let me know. Cheers, and thanks for the catch, Khazar (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
