Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 August 11
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 10 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 12 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
August 11[edit]
20:28:04, 11 August 2017 review of submission by Syrenka V[edit]
(I first asked this question at the Teahouse, and was asked to take it here, since it concerns notability more than reliability.)
Notability: "independent of subject" for large collaborative journalistic projects[edit]
I'm constructing a userspace draft for the Documenting Hate project of ProPublica, and I have a question about the application of the notability criteria. Documenting Hate is a very large collaborative project among a number of journalistic and academic organizations (currently almost 100, including many prominent names). There is no problem with finding news stories from reliable sources that describe it. The problem is that most journalistic organizations that write about the Documenting Hate collaboration immediately join it! Indeed, most of the news stories about it, while including ample descriptive material about the project in general, double as announcements that the news organization publishing the story has joined Documenting Hate. There are a few substantive stories about Documenting Hate from organizations that have not (yet) joined it, such as the Nieman Lab story cited in my current draft, but not nearly as many as from organizations that have joined.
So my question is: for purposes of determining notability, would all of those news organizations be disqualified as "not independent of the subject" for having joined it? Apparently most joined after the project was created; they were not involved in its creation as ProPublica was.
Syrenka V (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Syrenka V. Independence would be a problem. Try academic sources - books, and articles in scholarly journals. You may have to wait a few years for such sources on the topic to appear. The delay is not a problem for Wikipedia, which by its very nature can't have timely information on all topics. Meanwhile there are many notable articles and drafts to rescue, and millions of other ways to improve the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
22:10:31, 11 August 2017 review of draft by CharlotteMillion[edit]
I am writing an article for the new president of Colorado State University-Pueblo. How do I attach a jpg of him? I want the photo to appear in an inbox at the right. How do I designate the box, the header and the interior copy? Do I need to identify I am the primary source of the writing? (I have opened a wiki account.) Once I submit the draft for review, will you correct errors I may have made in html or other formatting (like references)? Do I have a final review before it goes live? Thank you. CharlotteMillion
CharlotteMillion (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
On hold pending paid editing disclosures, see User talk:CharlotteMillion. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi CharlotteMillion. Thank you for explaining your connection to the subject. I see that you've figured out how to use {{infobox person}} and have added a photo. Editing the draft is not a responsibility of reviewers, although some will do so. Reviewers primarily guide new editors while keeping deeply flawed pages out of the encyclopedia. If a draft's problems are few enough and minor enough, it likely will be accepted. Maintenance tags may be added to draw the attention of the editing community. The original author doesn't get a final review before an article is published. They do not own the page, which will be edited mercilessly by others. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
