User talk:Janicelmcdonald
Promotional tone[edit]
Actually, an article for ESPN most certainly could be an ad. ESPN advertises all the time. On the other hand, if there are third-party sources which have written about Around the Rings, it's certainly possible a non-ad article could be written about it. I've got an example I usually use, of two presentations of the same information, one of which is encyclopedic, one of which is advertising:
- "Brand X is a manufacturer of widgets. In 1996, Brand X's widgets were the number one entry in Consumer Reports' Great Widget Contest, and called "the best and toughest we've ever found". However, the widgets' ranking has steadily decreased since then, ranking 19th in 2005. Consumer Reports cited an "apparent decrease in quality control" as the main reason for the slide." This is encyclopedic, presents a balanced and neutral picture, and is factual.
- "Consumer Reports agrees, you just can't beat Brand X Widgets! According to a 1996 study. Some restrictions, exclusions, and limitations may apply. Just because we said something doesn't mean we meant any of it." It presents the same information, and is technically correct, but doesn't present a balanced or neutral picture. Writing articles about corporations can be tricky! The best thing to do is find some third-party sources which are not affiliated with the company, and to write as much of the article as possible based from those sources, as writing mainly from information mainly provided by the company can result in a bit of a puff piece. If you believe it can be made into an appropriate article, though, I'd be happy to userfy the old copy for you upon request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've userfied the previous text for you at User:Janicelmcdonald/temp. It looks like the website certainly can make a claim to notability, if you'd like, I'll be happy to help you with the rewrite. (Your reply was in the right place by the way, you're certainly welcome to reply here if you like as well, but I'll probably get the message faster on my talk). Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did a bit of work to it, cut out some of the most promotional bits ("most recognized name" and such, anything like that would require attribution to an independent reliable source). From there-has the Olympic Committee, or anyone else, actually written about it, besides name-dropping? The sources you sent me mention it several times, but don't go into a great deal of depth as to what the site actually does. (Of course, with that many mentions of the site, it would be acceptable to use the site itself to a limited degree as a source. Just remember that claims which are potentially self-serving ("industry leader", "best in class", etc.), should only be trusted and put in the article if they come from a source independent of the subject (and even then attributed specifically to Consumer Reports, or the NYT, or whoever, not put in "our voice"). However, self-published sources can be used for non-controversial and non-self-serving claims (what the site is, what it specializes in, etc.), especially since that's widely corroborated. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think we can work with that. They're name drops for the most part, but they're a lot of them, and many do corroborate some of what the site says, which allows some use of it as well. Have you been able to get to it anymore? Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry about that! I'd posted it above, but that must've gotten lost in the shuffle as well. You can find it at User:Janicelmcdonald/temp. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what happened. You edited the archived version after it'd already gotten sent there by the archiving bot. If that happens in the future, just leave a note on my main talk page rather than in the archive, I'm a lot more likely to see it that way. And of course if you need some further help integrating those sources in, let me know! Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problems, I'm happy to help! We were all new once after all. :) The temp page is a subpage of your userspace, where you can work on it to address the concerns that were raised during the deletion discussion. What would probably happen once the article is reworked is that the closing administrator of the deletion discussion would be contacted, and asked for an opinion on whether the article has adequately addressed those concerns and is now appropriate to post. At that point, one of three things will happen. If that administrator agrees to a repost, he or she may not wish to relist it on AfD, to gauge the community's consensus on whether the article is now appropriate, or may agree that it clearly does and no relisting is necessary. On the other hand, if that administrator disagrees, it would be necessary to request a deletion review, to assess whether the new article adequately addresses the concerns raised. What I'd advise, is to put as much sourced content into it as you can from neutral secondary sources that have reported on the organization, and use the organization itself only as a source for purely descriptive claims that couldn't be considered self-serving. (For example, the organization itself could be used as a source for the fact that it covers the Olympic Games, but not as a source for a claim that it's the "best Olympic website in the world." On the other hand, if another reliable and independent source called it the best Olympic website in the world, that claim certainly could be made and sourced.) If and when it does come time to move it back to mainspace (and only then!), it can be moved back using the "move" tool. You should see that link at the top of your page. While any editor who's had an account for some time can move an article, I can certainly perform the move when it's time to do so, as it can be a bit tricky. (As to archiving, if your previous thread gets archived from my talk page, just start a new thread on the talk page itself.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm stupid today...I was thinking of a different but similar case, I deleted the article in this case. And yes, I do, I've moved it back to mainspace (or at least probably have by the time you read this message), as it does now have a notability assertion and isn't promotional in tone. Thanks for your willingness to work on it, and if you need any help in the future, let me know! Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problems, I'm happy to help! We were all new once after all. :) The temp page is a subpage of your userspace, where you can work on it to address the concerns that were raised during the deletion discussion. What would probably happen once the article is reworked is that the closing administrator of the deletion discussion would be contacted, and asked for an opinion on whether the article has adequately addressed those concerns and is now appropriate to post. At that point, one of three things will happen. If that administrator agrees to a repost, he or she may not wish to relist it on AfD, to gauge the community's consensus on whether the article is now appropriate, or may agree that it clearly does and no relisting is necessary. On the other hand, if that administrator disagrees, it would be necessary to request a deletion review, to assess whether the new article adequately addresses the concerns raised. What I'd advise, is to put as much sourced content into it as you can from neutral secondary sources that have reported on the organization, and use the organization itself only as a source for purely descriptive claims that couldn't be considered self-serving. (For example, the organization itself could be used as a source for the fact that it covers the Olympic Games, but not as a source for a claim that it's the "best Olympic website in the world." On the other hand, if another reliable and independent source called it the best Olympic website in the world, that claim certainly could be made and sourced.) If and when it does come time to move it back to mainspace (and only then!), it can be moved back using the "move" tool. You should see that link at the top of your page. While any editor who's had an account for some time can move an article, I can certainly perform the move when it's time to do so, as it can be a bit tricky. (As to archiving, if your previous thread gets archived from my talk page, just start a new thread on the talk page itself.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what happened. You edited the archived version after it'd already gotten sent there by the archiving bot. If that happens in the future, just leave a note on my main talk page rather than in the archive, I'm a lot more likely to see it that way. And of course if you need some further help integrating those sources in, let me know! Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry about that! I'd posted it above, but that must've gotten lost in the shuffle as well. You can find it at User:Janicelmcdonald/temp. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
John Wayne[edit]
Janice,
Do you have a reference for this addition that you made to John Wayne:
- "In 2006, friends of Wayne's and his Arizona business partner, Louis Johnson innaugurated the first annual "Louie and the Duke Classics" events benefiting the John Wayne Cancer Foundation and the American Cancer Society. The weekend long event each fall in Casa Grande includes a golf tournament, an auction of John Wayne memoriabilia and a team roping competition."
Please provide sources, thanks. IP4240207xx 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm adding them now. Talk to me 12:55PM November 14, 2007 (EDT)