User talk:100937852S
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hello! 100937852S,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! DoctorG (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
|
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, 100937852S, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I've moved this back to draft because it was almost entirely unreferenced and if someone had tagged it for speedy deletion, I would have deleted it because it simply doesn't tell me why the project is important at all, much less why it is notable. Before moving it to mainspace, please include references to independent, reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate why it should be included on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi! I wanted to weigh in on this as well. This definitely needs sourcing to establish notability - both of the sources look to be primary, meaning that they were released by people or organizations that are directly involved with the People's Code. You need things like news stories or academic journal pieces written about the People's Code, that go into depth. Also, be careful of tone. You have some portions here that could be seen as non-neutral. For example, the word "cost-efficient" is something that is often seen as a promotional buzzword, as it's something people frequently employ to promote a specific thing. The source thing is the most major of the two things to be concerned about right now, however, as I'm not entirely certain that this has enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. You may want to see if it can be merged into something else. Is this something that the US government has adopted? (It's a bit unclear as to whether they're actively taking part in this and/or came up with this project themselves.) If so, you could probably just have a subsection about this at open data in the United States - however you would still need to find some independent sourcing. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)