Talk:Paw Paw Lake

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lakes

	Lakes portal Paw Paw Lake is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

References

I put the books under "References" specifically because the only other non-GNIS reference is a synopsis of two of those three books, and I was giving the author his due, since, by extension, so now is the article, as opposed listing the books merely because they were further resources. Is there due credit leaving the way it is now? If so, then I'll leave it alone. Mapsax (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be clearer if inline citations were used for specific details for which the books were used as reference. As it was it was unclear which books might have been consulted for which details. If the books were not actually used as references for the article, then they are resource for further reading. older ≠ wiser 20:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which pieces of information go with which books, since I've never read them. I'm just going from the citation at the bottom of the page which is the main reference. I just don't want to get into plagiarism issues. (Perhaps the aforementioned cite can prevent that.) Mapsax (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, always cite the source that you used -- not the source that that source claims to have used. See WP:CITE#Cite the place where you found the material. older ≠ wiser 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a Web page that is attributed to a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your source is really the Web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the Web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

OK, so since that addresses only the intermediate source, which I've had all along, I guess I'm OK. Thanks. Mapsax (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]