Hello, and thanks for your edits to Marion Wiesel! Per WP:CONSECUTIVECITE, Wikipedia only needs footnotes to appear at the end of the text they support. In other words, when 2-3 sentences of the same paragraph only rely on a single source, the corresponding footnote can be used once at the end of those sentences to avoid clutter. It is not prohibited to cite more often, but for this article that heavily relies on a single NYTimes article, I think we should strive to avoid overwhelming the reader with 15+ [1] footnotes in a relatively short article. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 18:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as general feedback since you seem to be a new editor, please try to make your edit summaries more descriptive. "Add" at least tells us that you were adding content, as opposed to deleting it, but it makes it easier if you specify what was added. Doesn't need to be longer than a sentence, but it should be longer than one word. Again, thanks for your editing! ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 18:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am aware. That focuses on breaking up a sentence unnecessarily. Look at the example given - it is quite instructive as to what it is meant to address. The problem with deleting it from the end of sentences - and this is even moreso a problem on article like this one undergoing extensive revisions by various editors, is that when we have "Sentence A, no cite, followed by Sentence B, cite good for A as well," it is not uncommon for new sentences to be inserted between the two. Which may not be covered by the cite. Also, it is not uncommon, as paras become longer, for the sentences to be split. So the better course imho is to add a cite after each sentence. Though there is no need for multiple cites within the sentence.--2603:7000:2101:AA00:200B:391F:C5EB:E244 (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually have a dynamic IP, so am not a complete newbie. I think my edit summaries are sufficient. If there is reason for something longer, I will add it. But most additions are self-explanatory, and there is no need for a full sentence in the edit summary. CE, add, d non notable, revert due to ..., d per ref, d as uncited OR, are all good imho. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:200B:391F:C5EB:E244 (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not disagree about footnotes enough to argue, but I really would encourage longer edit summaries. All of the shorthand edit summaries you provided except "add" work for me as multi-word explanations. But for someone searching for when particular content was added, it really helps if you at least say what section of the article you were writing in. Otherwise others have to either binary search through the article history or use XTools' blame utility. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 19:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 February 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marion Wiesel, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 20:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]