This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Port of Los Angeles article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in California may be able to help! |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cindyc333, Smiley.Ycheng, Larapaderes17.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I think given the first paragraph and the lack of a lot of hyperlinks, it's pretty clear this article was probably not written in the spirit of information so much as advertisement. Cwilli201 ( talk) 06:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Using a minimal amount of effort I found the first paragraph at the About page for the LA Port website [1] word for word. So while not an advertisement it is probably in violation since it is not credited. I don't know exactly what the previous writer was talking about but I assume they meant citations and not hyper links since by my count there were more than 35 hyperlinks not including the 2007 Facts and Figures table. Sanran825 ( talk) 04:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have identified the sections that clearly are no more than re-wordings of the content on the official Port of LA web site. Some of it isn't even re-worded. It was copied verbatim. -- Gmatsuda ( talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I looked at the links you provided in the original cv notice and didn't find anything I thought was unacceptable. That doesn't mean that it's not there, just that I didn't find it. If you see a specific problem, definitely bring it up here. delldot talk 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I know it is a technicality and wikipedia rules may forbide it anyways, but since the Port of Los Angeles is a governmental institution of the city of Los Angeles there is no copyright protection for its website as it is considered a government produced document. I agree that any information off of it should be put into a person's own words and then cited properly though. Don't throw out all information from the website, I'm sure some of it is important. 24.182.142.254 ( talk) 23:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
By what criteria? Certainly not by the criteria used in the List of ports in the United States article which doesnt rank it in the top 10, I believe it's 14 or 15 in fact. I don't doubt that by some sort of criteria it is, but please put in the opening paragraph what criteria you are using. I know there are three citations for it (though I am too lazy to check out the citations myself) but it really should be in the article itself what criteria is being used. 24.182.142.254 ( talk) 23:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Port of Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The article claims that the port represents 43% of the cargo entering the US. The citation given however claims something else: "In the first three months of 2016, Los Angeles and Long Beach took in 37% of all imports to the country arriving in containers, down from 43% during the same period in 2007." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.140.103 ( talk) 01:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)