User talk:Janehisa

Your submission at Articles for creation: Duncan Ryūken Williams (March 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Duncan Ryūken Williams may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SITH (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Janehisa! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SITH (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you want help with the Duncan Williams article?

Hi @Janehisa:. It seems like you're having trouble with your article submission on Duncan Ryuken Williams. Do you mind if I step in and make a few changes? My coworkers really enjoyed "American Sutra", so as long as you have independent references to show that Mr. Williams is notable according to Wikipedia's standards, I'm happy to help you format the article correctly. Please let me know! Mcampany (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mcampany: Hi! Thank you for your offer - I'd love your help! Janehisa (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Janehisa: Great! I'm in the middle of translating something right now, but I'll work on the Duncan Ryuken Williams article sometime this week or next. Mcampany (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Janehisa! You created a thread called revising and resubmitting a draft at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Update on Duncan Ryuken Williams article

Hi again! I've gone through the article, and did the edits in two parts.

First I edited purely for formatting and appearance. I was really happy to see that you got the hang of inline citations! Then I edited for content. Wikipedia has guidelines against promotional language (and promotion in general, as you found with the COI guidelines), so I made the language a little more neutral. Wikipedia's manual of style also suggests that we paraphrase as much as possible, and only use quotations if there is no better way to illustrate something. In this case, a lot of it could have been re-worded. Please feel free to go through again and fix up anything I've written.

Finally, I left one last section for you to work on. The sections on "American Sutra" and "The other side of Zen" are currently written the opposite way from how Wikipedia articles are usually written. Instead of summarizing and citing the publisher's site, please describe the books by summarizing the book reviews that you cited instead. The reason why we do this is because we discourage linking to sites that are trying to sell things to the user, unless that is the only source available. You can read WP:AFFILIATE for more information. Since we have other sources to cite, it's better to use those instead of the ones linking to where readers can buy the book. If the reader wants to buy the book, they'll be able to find it themselves!

Once you've taken care of that, feel free to hit the submit button on the draft. That will take it to the "Articles for Creation" queue, where it will take up to two months to be reviewed. Alternatively, you can let me know once you're done fixing the sections on "American Sutra" and "The other side of Zen", and if it looks good I'll move it to mainspace myself. It will be indexed on Google after New Page Patrol reviews it, which is usually in 3-5 days. Let me know what you'd like to do, and feel free to drop me a message any time you need help. Mcampany (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mcampany: Hi! Thank you so much for your help with this. As you could tell, I've been having a lot of trouble trying to figure out Wikipedia's formatting guidelines. Your specific directions helped tremendously. I think I was able to revise and address what you mentioned. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks! Janehisa (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Janehisa: Hi there! Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I needed some time to think of the right words to express what seems off about the article to me. I think I've got it now.

What you did isn't quite what I meant. Ideally, we'd want to get rid of the section listing every place that the book has been reviewed. We want to use inline citations to show where it has been reviewed! :) If we just list all of the reviews, I feel like we're trying to imply that the book is important because it has been reviewed by important publications, but what we really mean is that they're important books because of what they add to the field. However, since we don't want to go overboard by putting every single review as an inline citation, I'd recommend just picking the best three reviews and using those as citations instead. If anyone is really interested in the other reviews, they'll be able to go out and find them. If you really, really want to have an article that includes all of them, it might be worth it to spend some time perusing WP:NBook and seeing if the books meet the standards for standalone articles--then maybe you can include all of the reviews.

I know that it's tempting to include all of the reviews because it beefs up the references section and makes it look like Williams is incredibly notable and has been written about everywhere. But he meets the notability standard, so we don't need to bomb the references section like that.

I made a few final, minor changes, namely removing the review lists and moving the "teaching and affiliation" section to the top of the "career" section. This is because the thing that meets the notability criteria, his named chair position, is in the education section, so I think it should go first.

If you're all ready to go, please let me know. Once the article has been moved to mainspace, you'll need to request any further changes on the talk page, instead of editing the article yourself. It's been a pleasure working with you! Mcampany (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mcampany: Hi! Thanks so much for revising the text and explaining the process to me again. What you said makes sense. I modeled my draft after multiple Wikipedia pages I looked at and I think one of them listed reviews at the end like that (of course, now I can't find it...). Your revisions look great so I am ready to go on this end. Thanks again for all of your help - it's been a pleasure working with you, too!Janehisa (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)