Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 February 22
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 21 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 23 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
February 22
[edit]§Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.143.108.152 (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- What exactly do you need help with? The HuffPo article is a primary source, written by the organization's founder, and the other two sources are but local news. You should probably add some non-local reliable, independent sources to clearly establish the organization's notability. Huon (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Chappaquiddick
[edit]Hello - My recent submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chappaquiddick incident conspiracy theories was rejected by reviewer User:GAtechnical on the grounds that the article "reads like an essay". I understand the difficulty in evaluating these postings, but I wonder if you'd look at it to determine if it's fundamentally flawed in that respect.
The subject of "conspiracy theories" no doubt raises red flags with some editors, but as encyclopedians, we should maintain a dispassionate approach. Can you give me a frank evaluation of the article? I would encourage you to take a look at some existing articles - John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories - for examples of "essay"-like contributions. I feel fairly certain that the article I've submitted avoids these "literary offenses" and provides adequate secondary sourcing.
36hourblock (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with the reviewer that the draft would, at the very least, need seriour work. In particular, the "Official findings - conspiracy hypothesis" format is hardly what I'd expect of an encyclopedia article, and the various side remarks in square brackets don't belong. It would make much more sense to detail the different conspiracy theories one after another than to mix them up in this fashion. In fact, the lead section alone reads much more like what I'd expect of an article.
- I'm also not all that impressed by the sources. At times you even cite the conspiracy theorists as if they were reliable - not just for their own theories, but for unrelated facts. That seems problematic. Huon (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion on the part of Huon regarding the "conspiracy theorists". One is required to present their published analysis if one is to write an article on the conspiracy theories they've presented on the Chappaquiddick Incident. This is necessary even if Huon holds them in low esteem. Does Huon want editors to cite sources "as if they were not reliable"? What nonsense! Huon wishes to introduce his/her own bias into the article - this won't do. Knight, and others cited in the article deal with the topic objectively; so has 36hourblock.
The "Official findings - conspiracy hypothesis" is used for clarity - a touchstone for encyclopedians. In fact, the format does anything but "mix them up". What is Huon talking about?
It is our responsibility to present the material so it can be understood, not as advocates for or against the "conspiracy theorists". That Huon is "not impressed" belies an attitude towards the topic which lacks objectivity. I would request that a less biased editor (and not an ally of Huon) take a look at the article and read it for comprehension.
Regarding the "square brackets": these can be removed if they are deemed objectionable.