Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

APT generated citations not formatted correctly #825

Closed
Tracked by #832 ...
bwbaker1 opened this issue Nov 1, 2023 · 11 comments
Closed
Tracked by #832 ...

APT generated citations not formatted correctly #825

bwbaker1 opened this issue Nov 1, 2023 · 11 comments
Assignees

Comments

@bwbaker1
Copy link
Collaborator

bwbaker1 commented Nov 1, 2023

Description

The current format of generated ATBD citations changed at some point and is no longer correct.

Current example from UI:

Image

It should look like the following:
Hu, C., Werdell, J., O'Reilly, J., Feng, L., Lee, Z., Franz, B., Bailey, S., & Proctor, C. (Publication Date). Chlorophyll a, v1.0. NASA Algorithm Publication Tool. (DOI).

Format:
lastname, first initial., lastname, first initial., ..... & lastname, first initial. (Publication Date). Title, Version. Publisher. Online Resource. DOI.

The citation link is also incorrect. It is missing "apt/"

Image

@bwbaker1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bwbaker1 commented Nov 1, 2023

@ashleyriddle92 Will you review this format and verify it is correct?

@ashleyriddle92
Copy link

If were to use a journal format, it would look like this:

Hu, C., Werdell, J., O'Reilly, J., Feng, L., Lee, Z., Franz, B., Bailey, S., & Proctor, C. (Publication Date). Chlorophyll a, v1.0. NASA Algorithm Publication Tool. (DOI).

@kamicut
Copy link
Collaborator

kamicut commented Mar 20, 2024

Hello @bwbaker1 if the document has an existing DOI (as input in the identifying information), should we use the existing DOI or the generated URL pointing to the document?

@bwbaker1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@kamicut We should use the existing DOI.

@wrynearson
Copy link
Member

@bwbaker1 this is on staging and ready for your review

@bwbaker1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@wrynearson There are a few issues. This is what I get.

Screenshot 2024-03-27 at 10 28 33 AM

It should look like this:
Baker, B. & Riddle A. (publication date). APT Citation Generator Test, v1. NASA Algorithm Publication Tool. (DOI)

So only the first name initial should be displayed and the publisher should be italicized.

@kamicut
Copy link
Collaborator

kamicut commented Mar 27, 2024

  1. @bwbaker1 could you check that you've entered the name of the editors in the format Lastname, Firstname in the Identifying information section? We are standardizing those inputs across the application so that we can correctly identify the last name(s)
  2. I will look into italicizing the publisher.

@kamicut kamicut self-assigned this Mar 27, 2024
@wrynearson
Copy link
Member

@bwbaker1 are these the screenshots you meant to include? The citation is being driven by the citations form in the 1st step of the edit flow (Identifying Information), not the contacts form in the 2nd step

@bwbaker1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@wrynearson Sorry. but I guess I didn't preview those for commenting. It should have been these.

Screenshot 2024-03-28 at 7 53 46 AM

Screenshot 2024-03-28 at 7 54 08 AM

The final citation should be the following:

Baker, B. & Riddle, A. (publication date - null). APT Citation Generator Test, v1. NASA Algorithm Publication Tool. (10.1029/2022EA002516).

@wrynearson
Copy link
Member

We're working on the first names not appearing. We should have a fix this week.

For the italics, it looks like it will require more changes. How critical is this issue? Could users who are copying the citation apply formatting changes elsewhere for the time being?

(publication date - null)

If there is no publication date, should we explicitly say "publication date - null", or is "null" enough?

@bwbaker1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@wrynearson This isn't a high priority right now. It looks better than it did before. The bigger issue is #843 because we have someone ready to publish but can't until the order of the contacts is correct. Also, another document is in review, so that is going to lead to the same issue soon.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants