Talk:New Albany Community Foundation
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Promotional tone[edit]
I restored the advert tag just now. The article as it currently is needs to follow the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy more closely. For example, it needs to "avoid stating opinions as facts" - by attributing where opinionated quotes are coming from in the article's text, and the article shouldn't have WP:PEACOCK words.
Basically, this needs to read more like an encyclopedia article (with plain facts being stated) than a newspaper or editorial article. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I've cleaned up what I can for now. And now that I'm reading it more closely, I can see that - although the article is very well written - it has a lot of superfluous information that makes it come across as an advertisement. This is a foundation that mainly does fundraising for different community organizations, buildings, and events. Yet the article goes into deep detail about some of these separate organization's or building's accomplishments, as if it's relevant to an encyclopedia article about the foundation. I think a lot of this information needs to be cut down to one or two sentences, and more or less restricted to the direct impact the foundation had on the places it funded. This might mean the article's length is shortened by a lot, or it might mean that editors have to dig into sources and find more direct information about what the foundation specifically does, and leave the article just to that. I also think the "Impact and major initiatives" section comes across as promotional, even just by how it's titled. Ideally, I think this should be absorbed into the history section. If that means there are still different subsections on their major fund-raising events/impacts, I think that'd be fine. I just think it makes more sense to have them in chronological order in a more succinct section. I'm interested to hear any other's opinion on article improvements, since these are just my first thoughts. - Whisperjanes (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)