Jump to content

Talk:The Dougy Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

COI

[edit]
Extended content

In accordance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, I have chosen to disclose that I have a personal connection to this subject. I will spare details (those who know me well would know my reasons), but my main purpose in writing this article is to benefit Wikipedia and its mission. I believe this article is written from a neutral perspective and has been constructed from independent, reliable sources. The second link above provides the following summary, which I believe I have followed appropriately:

  • Be transparent about your conflict of interest ( Done)
  • Subjects require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. ( Done)
  • Your role is to inform and reference, not promote or sell. ( Done)
  • Be extremely cautious about the risks of editing articles about yourself or your clients ( Done|N/A)
  • If writing a draft, write without bias, as if you don't work for the company or personally know the subject. ( Done)
  • State facts and statistics, don't be vague or general. ( Done)
  • Take time to get sources and policy right. ( Done)
  • Get neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review your draft. ( Doing...)
  • Work with the community and we'll work with you. ( Doing...)
  • Communicate, communicate, communicate. ( Doing...)

My goal is to promote this article to Good status. I understand this will require review and assistance from other members of the community, which is great. I invite all to examine this article carefully to make sure the content is fair and accurate. Feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've requested a copy edit by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Nominating for Good article status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article promoted to Good status. Thank you, Cirt, for your help. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from WP:GA Reviewer: After reviewing this article and subsequently promoting it to WP:GA, I can say in retrospect the above declared WP:COI was certainly very nice to know, but did not turn out to be a problem whatsoever. I am, however, glad it was brought to this stage of review, for third-party members of the Wikipedia community to evaluate. The only minor indicator type issue I saw was one pull-quote-box, which I removed from the article. Good job overall, and thanks for being so open and responsive to community feedback, — Cirt (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

Out of date

[edit]

@Another Believer: - I stumbled across this GA, and it looks like it hasn't been updated in about 10 years, with nothing reflecting the last several years of events, and the statistics being to older sources. Any chance you'd be able to revisit and update this one so that it's still compliant with the GA criteria? Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently traveling and can't make this an immediately top priority, but I'm happy to start by sharing some more recent sources to consider:
---Another Believer (Talk) 01:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I don't know how much I'll be able to do myself - I've got a major professional examination next week, and am already committed to working on another good article review and a featured article review. Hog Farm Talk 02:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]