User talk:Theloudestfire

This is Theloudestfire's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shawn Stewart Ruff (June 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Winning a Lambda Literary Award is enough of a claim of notability that this can be approved with more solid referencing -- and I'm the guy who tries harder than anybody else on Wikipedia to fill in the redlinks in our Lambda Literary Award articles, so I definitely want to put this through. However, as things stand at the moment, the only reference here is the presence of his name in the Lambda Literary Foundation's own self-published list of the award winners, and that's not enough by itself. Please add at least a couple of pieces of reliable source coverage about him in media.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shawn Stewart Ruff and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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.

Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Theloudestfire, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The GLBT Reviews reference is okay, because it's actually a reasonably detailed review of his work — but the other two links you added are really just directories, so they aren't really quite what I was talking about. I get that it might be a bit difficult to for a new editor to understand exactly what the difference is between the good and bad kinds of referencing, though, so I'm doing a search right now to find some of the better class of sources myself. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some improved sources now. Thanks for being understanding; some people get really frustrated when their AFC submissions aren't immediately accepted as is, so thanks for being patient. So if you could hit the "resubmit" button on it now, I can bump it up to mainspace. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shawn Stewart Ruff has been accepted

Shawn Stewart Ruff, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to 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. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links

The appropriate way to use them would be as references for expanded content in the article, in the same manner as the references that are already there — a properly formatted encyclopedia article would not, however, simply include contextless directory lists of reviews and other media coverage. But at the same time, we don't want to reference-bomb the article with five or six or ten different references for the same content, so the additional links would only be useful if they can support new content beyond what's already in the article right now — if they just provide repeated support for content that already has references for it, then they're not needed in that context. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]