Talk:Visual Resources Association

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

problems with the article

My assistance was requested with this article. There are a number of problems, some serious, but all fixable.

1.The article needs to prove notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. This is not really adequately done--sources that talk about the association are what's needed. Probably some of the many art library and museum publications have written articles describing the association. They're the sort of thing needed.

2. But the serious problem is copyright. You must explicitly license the rights to the material according to our licensing, using the CC-BY-SA and the GNU licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials ; be aware that these licenses give everyone in the world an irrevocable license to reuse and alter the material, even for commercial purposes. Many organizations aren tt willing to do this, for it gives everyone an permanent irrevocable right to change and use the material as they like. In general, I do not really recommend doing this because for material from a website, even if you give us permission, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable.You need to write like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization, say what it does.. Don't talk about the overall importance of the subject--talk about what it has accomplished.

3. Include only the material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the organization and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia . Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the organization, or to prospective clients--that sort of content is considered promotional. The name should be used only the minimum number of times, only the leading officials should be mentioned, the detailed administrative history should be given only in brief. most adjectives & vague statements of praise need to =be removed, along with directory information about locations and contacts, and discussions about the general importance of the industry.

4.As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of the organization wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. If you think you can do it right according to the guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity.

5. I urge you to help write a proper article . I am willing to help you--I have made rather a specialty here of rewriting articles like this. I will start by making several passes through the material , removing inappropriate content. The copyvio will be best dealt with by condensing the presentation, copyediting for brevity avoiding jargon, and writing the various sections afresh. The goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, which are usually more expansive. After I do this, I will indicate parts that you can best help with

6. For further information see our FAQ about business, organizations, and articles like this and also WP:FIRST. I do not want to discourage you, but to urge you to write a proper article In addition, we are in great need of articles in this subject area, and the association and its members can be of the greatest aasistance in , please help us by writing articles on missing topics, and improving our other articles on related topics.
Let me also add, we have an active program of cooperating with museums and similar organizations. We are delighted to work together as closely as you wish with any such group that wishes to see its resources better vovered on Wikipedia, and thus contribute to the common mission of public education. See Wikipedia:Advice for the cultural sector DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

Well, I ended up rewriting almost the entire article. It's more concise, and looks less promotional. The manner of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, which are usually more expansive.
What you can now do best to help, is to add 3rd party references, as described in no.1, above.
You might also consider a list of past presidents. In general, being the president of a national organization is one of the criteria for notability of an academic (see WP:PROF)
We also need an article on the VRA Bulletin. See our Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide. As it specifies there, the best way to start is by using the infobox journal template; but also convert the information there to prose. Do NOT copy the journal website. The successive editors of a journal are also usually considered notable here, so add their names. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Visual Resources Association/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Assessment==

I've assessed this as a low-priority, start-class article as follows:

Low priority because despite the rich, fascinating, and important subject matter addressed, this particular organization has only 800 members and, judged against the universe of tens of thousands of other professional organizations, is relatively obscure and specialized.
Start class. Although very well and professionally written (based on the edit summaries on instructions from the organization's Executive Board), it does not conform to Wikipedia norms and style conventions. One of the most obvious issues is the relative lack of inline citations, and the fact that this is mostly cited to the organization's own website. Also, there are lots of external links interspersed with the text. Those should be gathered and either: (1) put in an "external links" section, or (2) where these links are used as citations, turn them into footnote citations using the "ref" markup and the standard "cite xx" templates. The result is that this article reads better and is more informative than the vast majority of articles out there about comparable organizations, but it will be hard to maintain and edit collaboratively.

Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

problems with the article

Progress

Other links

Assessment comment