User talk:Nturnerjj

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Nturnerjj/Kennedy's Kitchen has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kennedy's Kitchen, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kennedy's Kitchen. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been adding some independent sources to the article. Good - this is the way to go. I haven't looked through them all, but I agree that they probably establish that the band is notable.

I still have some problems with the language. The second sentence begins "The band is known for ...", which immediately invites the question "known by whom?" "how widely?". "known for" is a peacock term, which should be used in an article only when quoting a reliable independent source. Similarly later "the spontaneity the band is noted for".

The trouble with this sort of language in the article is not the language itself, but the suggestion it gives that the writer's purpose is promoting the band. This purpose is fundamentally inconsistent with the purposes of Wikipedia. That is why I suggested that the article needed a complete rewrite.

You ask whether the copyright permissions were taken into account in the review: they are almost certainly irrelevant. Since there is only text in the article, you must be talking about text, and text from elsewhere is hardly ever appropriate to a Wikipedia article. In fact this may be where the promotional wording came from. --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for the feedback. I will work on the language. When I feel that I am ready to try another submission, how do I go about doing it? Do I put the code that was suggested at the top of the talk page? Does someone automatically see it and re-evaluate it or do I have to "submit" somehow? Thank you, Nturnerjj (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you add the template as it says, it will automatically be added to the relevant category.

Further feedback from me: the biography section is too long, and entirely unreferenced. This is an article about the band, not about the individuals. It is entirely reasonable to mention the members of the band, but apart perhaps from the founder, I would not expect more than a sentence or two about each, and I would not expect to see information unrelated to their participation in the band, unless it was independently notable.

The thing to strive for is a neutral point of view: if you didn't know the band, and came upon this article in an encyclopaedia - not a directory, music magazine or fansite, but a general international encyclopaedia - would you find the tone to be appropriate? --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Yes, I see what you mean about the tone and will definitely work on a neutral point of view. As far as the biographical information, is it okay that it comes from the band's website, which I have as an "external link?" Or should the band's website be a #12 reference with an inline citation at the end of each group member's section? Also, I see that some pages have an "Info box" where there is a photo along with relevant information. I cannot seem to find how to do that. . . any suggestions? Thank you, Nturnerjj (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information can come from the band's website, but should be written in your own (neutral) words, and apart from basic biographical facts should not be included unless it is both relevant to the article and supported by an independent source. (Just because somebody's website says they have won an award, doesn't mean that it is necessarily true - I'm not getting at the members of this band, but stating a general point).

You get the infobox by inserting {{Infobox musical artist}} on the page, with suitable arguments. The page Template:Infobox musical artist tells you how to use it (but you should read the links to policy and guidelines on that page). You can see an example of how it is used by picking the Edit tab at the top of any page that uses the template.

To add a picture, you will need to upload it: see WP:Image tutorial. This is the one place that copyright permissions may be relevant: pictures of the band or its members are likely to be copyright, and normally you can only include them if you can satisfy the very restrictive conditions for WP:Fair use; but if the copyright owners agree to donate them under an acceptable license, then you can upload the picture to Wikimedia Commons so that it will be available to pages in any Wikipedia project. --ColinFine (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have added some independent sources and since I have done that, the information at the bottom of the Editing page is not showing on the talk page. . .the end of the last section, the list of CD's, past band members as well as the word "References" (the last reference is not showing either). Should I assume they will show later when there is more room on the page? Thank you, Nturnerjj (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Kennedy's Kitchen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Sceptre ^(talk) 18:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]