Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 November 19
I am trying to create a page for the village named Ayyavadi. What type of references can I use?
Srinivas Ramakrishnan (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest looking at the article Sholinganallur and its references for ideas--I gather that this is a small town where one of the related temples is located. I noticed that your article draft is primarily concerned with the temple in Ayyavadi. If the new article is meant to focus mainly on the temple, then, as an alternative, you might want to consider enhancing the information about it in the "Temples" section of the article on Prathyangira. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions. A page named Prathyangira already exists. So I am trying to create a page for the Ayyavdi, including the popularity of the temple. Thank you once again. Srinivas Ramakrishnan (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Please review my article about Rachel Isaacs. Thanks.
Dante8 (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed some of the references with the "cite web" template. However, I think you need to cite the underlying document you linked to Google Docs for. If you look at WP:RS you'll note that blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. So your link to a blog is probably not helpful. The link to the Beth Israel Congregation web site is probably not going to be considered a reliable source, because it is an autobiographical sketch. Questions may be raised about the notability of your subject given the documentation. Tkotc (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed the Google Docs thing by finding the underlying document (by just Googling) and using that. Compared to Gusfield and Klein, Issacs is lot more notable, with articles about her. I'm not certain that the Forwards blog ref isn't OK. It is a "blog", but not just some person's personal website -- it's attached to the Forwards, which is a famous and long-lived entity. We give a lot of credit to blogs attached to and under the name of the Washington Post and NY Times, on the ground that those publications are, to some extent, standing behind the content by allowing their name to be attached to it. I would suppose the Forward is entitled to the same. I think that this is covered at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Lilith Magazine is not that notable, but it's a real entity with real editors, and the Forward is notable. I'd think that Isaacs probably passes our notability standards. Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't get involved in notability arguments, just to point out that they (often needlessly) do arise. My interest is in protecting people from that aggravation. I thought the references as they stood were ill-formed, and I do think citations where possible should be to original sources. I don't think Google Docs was the best way to source that one. Blogs are blogs. So where to you draw the line on blogs? Are some pet blogs privileged? You make me sorry for having chipped in my two cents. There are more productive uses for my time.Tkotc (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, no, Tkotc, I value your input. And it was fine! And I wasn't disagreeing with you. It's certainly true that Google-Docs formatted ref is not OK and so forth. I was only advising the person that the blog will probably pass muster and be considered if and when this article is AfD'd, because it's attached to the Forwards. That is just my opinion, is all. I'm really sorry if it seems I deprecated your useful and valuable input, and it's purely my own clumsiness in expressing myself that's at fault, not you. Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't get involved in notability arguments, just to point out that they (often needlessly) do arise. My interest is in protecting people from that aggravation. I thought the references as they stood were ill-formed, and I do think citations where possible should be to original sources. I don't think Google Docs was the best way to source that one. Blogs are blogs. So where to you draw the line on blogs? Are some pet blogs privileged? You make me sorry for having chipped in my two cents. There are more productive uses for my time.Tkotc (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed the Google Docs thing by finding the underlying document (by just Googling) and using that. Compared to Gusfield and Klein, Issacs is lot more notable, with articles about her. I'm not certain that the Forwards blog ref isn't OK. It is a "blog", but not just some person's personal website -- it's attached to the Forwards, which is a famous and long-lived entity. We give a lot of credit to blogs attached to and under the name of the Washington Post and NY Times, on the ground that those publications are, to some extent, standing behind the content by allowing their name to be attached to it. I would suppose the Forward is entitled to the same. I think that this is covered at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Lilith Magazine is not that notable, but it's a real entity with real editors, and the Forward is notable. I'd think that Isaacs probably passes our notability standards. Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- So she was a lesbian rabbi. What else has she contributed to society? WylieCoyote (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Please review my article on Chaya Gusfield. Thanks.
Dante8 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the writing is fine, the formatting is correct, and you used {{cite web}} which is nice. But, not to be discouraging, I'm not seeing this person as being particularly notable. See WP:BIO for detailed guidelines for biographies, but in a nutshell, if there is not even at least one one-paragraph story about a person in some publication, even a small local newspaper or highly specialized magazine or something, I can't that person as being notable. The Kehilla and Beth Chaim refs are just staff listings and do not indicate much beyond that she has a job. The Zeek ref is a little better. (Online-only entities are deprecated somewhat, but at least it's a real site with an editor and so forth.) However, it is by Gusfield and not about her, so... nobody has written about her. That's not a good marker of notability. I'd suggest instead maybe a sentence at Jewish Renewal along the lines of "In 2006, Jewish Renewal ordained its first openly lesbian rabbis". Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Please review my article on Rabbi Lori Klein. Thanks.
Dante8 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- See my comments above re Chaya Gusfield. Herostratus (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Please review my article on Deborah Brin. Thank you.