Talk:Randenigala Dam

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Randenigala Dam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sri Lanka Mid‑importance

	Sri Lanka portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka 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.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dams Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dams, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dams 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.DamsWikipedia:WikiProject DamsTemplate:WikiProject DamsDam articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tone and colouring of images[edit]

If anyone can swish their powerful photoshop wand over the images I've uploaded (and make it look better, of course), please do so. I tried doing it myself, but it's just not happening. Thanks! Reh man 10:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations[edit]

User:Obi2canibe: Regarding "three out of six paragraphs don't have any inline citations; most of the contents of the infobox aren't sourced anywhere in article"; all content mentioned in the infobox are also reflected on the article body. A basic check would show that each section's reference(s) mentions everything mentioned in that section, including the paragraph(s) above it. So "most of the contents of the infobox aren't sourced anywhere" is false.

I have now duplicated them, so hopefully it is less confusing for you. The first reference itself is from the dam/power station authority, FYI. Like I said earlier, if you have any issue with any particular piece of information, please use an inline template, or post on this talkpage. Reh man 03:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rehman: All the content in the infobox may be mentioned the main body but the main body was poorly sourced - as stated three of the six paragraphs were unsourced. It was only me reverting you that forced you to add citations at the end of these paragraphs. If I hadn't, those paragraphs would have remained unsourced. Sheer arrogance on your part to revert me for trying to uphold one of Wikipedia's core content policies, WP:V.

For the record, the three unsourced paragraphs contained these facts which were repeated (naturally without any sources) in the infobox:

Opening date

Height (foundation)

Width (crest)

Width (base)

Total capacity

Catchment area

Adding a citation at the end of the last sentence in each paragraph to cite the entire paragraph is pure laziness. It forces the reader to check the source to see if it cites the entire paragraph or just the last sentence.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of all the usual habitual personal attacks and reverts, if you had initially simply used inline templates or at least used more descriptive edit summaries, we wouldn't have had to waste all this time now, wouldn't we? Reh man 05:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rehman:So you accept that when you first reverted me there was large chunks of the article, including much of the content, that were unsourced? And when you stated in the edit summary that my reason for adding the maintenance template was false you were in fact lying?

You knew you first revert was so out of order that you added four inline citations, which was the whole point of me adding the maintenance template, before reverting me for a second time. If I hadn't stood up to your first arrogant revert the article would have remained poorly sourced.

The article was so poorly sourced that if I had added inline templates it would have been a mess. --Obi2canibe (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]