User talk:Amandaallard05

Hi, Amanda,

you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. If you want to try your text here, I'll be happy to have a look. This will help you determine what are appropriate sources. Although you can use your church sources for purely factual stuff, like its history, you will need other references to establish its notability and to verify facts for which your church may not be seen as a neutral source. Above all, remember that this is an encyclopaedia, and facts are what matters, not opinions or unsupported claims. Funnily enough, for the first time ever I'm doing a church myself (St Nicholas, Blakeney), but it's unlikely to help you since the emphasis is on the history and fabric of this slightly older institution (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Jim! I emailed you. The site that you sent me was helpful. Also, I'm having a really hard time finding some neutral sources and was wondering if you had any ideas for that. Amandaallard05 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I've made these changes, some of which I comment on below

Your lead section should be unheaded and summarise the article as a whole
You need more wikilinks, I've added a few, but there is plenty of scope for more
bare urls are hard to read, ^[1] is much simpler, I've fixed one to show you <ref> will do instead of <ref name =, but the latter is better if you use a ref more than once.
I've changed the subsection layout using === ===. If you prefer, you could use a list, preceding each item with *
you can bold the first occurrence (only) of the article name
write US states in full
The tone is still promotional.

We are told nothing about the physical appearance of the church, not even a photo — I'm sure you could take a photo you could release to Wikipedia (not from a website unless it is clearly stated to be PD) If you do, upload to Commons, not Wikipedia
In contrast, there is a bucketful of stuff about missions, aims and achievements
stuff like focuses to inspire and empower women to live a life that is purposeful, centered, passionate, true, and original. is unencylopaedic and is almost asking for the "Delete" button to be pressed. Remember to write your article from a distance, as if you are a non-member of a church

There is still quite a lot of unreferenced stuff
Has the church ever attracted any criticism or controversy? If it has, mention it, since negative stuff reinforces the impression of neutrality you're aiming for

There's some work needs doing before it's thrown to the wolves, but you're going in the right direction Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple of further tweaks to fix a couple of the refs. I missed the closing ] in the example I gave, and you added the first [, but no description. Make sure the images you use are taken by you personally, or are clearly labelled as PD on your church website if taken from there. Stating that you have permission to use an image is not enough, an OTRS ticket would be neeeded, so best avoid that route Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I wouldn't mind helping you out. I'll read over it tonight. Ltwin (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can already read it. I've just been a little busy with a controversy over at the Elevation page. Ltwin (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read over it and made some small editorial changes and linked Assemblies of God to its US branch article. The sections seem very thin. Unless you plan on writing more about these topics, I would combine "Community Involvement", "Ministries", and "Conferences" into one section. Also, I would probably not go into specifics about the school (such as grade levels and enrollment) in the introduction. I would also include the date the church was founded in the introduction. You may also be interested in knowing that Rockford First is listed number 51 in the 100 largest AG churches in the US. It also lists the exact figure of 2,395 for average attendance. This is from the AG statistical report which can be found here http://agchurches.org/Sitefiles/Default/RSS/AG.org%20TOP/AG%20Statistical%20Reports/2010%20Stats/LarChu2010.pdf. Hope this helps. Ltwin (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's as easy as copy and pasting from the Elevation page to yours. I've already done it for you. Now you can just go into edit mode and change the parameters. Ltwin (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made these changes, mostly WP:MOS fixes.

As before, I think having bare urls as your refs is unhelpful. I've fixed refs 2 and 3, but you should really format the others as [url description] too, to help your readers
like Ltwin, I don't like all those very short subsections, I'd be inclined to lose most of the subheads.
Pics are a great improvement, well done.
It still worries me that although it's not outright spam now, it reads as very uncritical and self-satisfied, and might possibly attract an WP:AfD on grounds of self-promotion. I've found that it helps to have section outlining any criticism or controversy. I know some US churches hold much more radical views on eg abortion, evolution, homosexuality or Islam than mainstream European churches. Has your church aroused any controversy with its actions or views?

When you are ready, just copy your sandboxed text into the article space at Rockford First Church Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand what you are saying, and it's up to you. Just be aware of WP:OWN. Anyone can edit any article, so if there is any "dirty linen", it might be better to add it yourself. It's hard to pin down exactly why it reads as if it's written by a member, I suppose it's the emphasis on the activities rather than the building. My current church article has nothing about the activities, it's all architecture and history (it helps that it's 13th century — I've got a 7th century Saxon church lined up next). Anyway, I think the article has a decent chance of surviving as it is, once you've done the changes, so just post and see what happens. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, you need to add categories to your article (look at the very bottom of mine). You might have to search for appropriate cats, or ask someone with more knowledge of US churches than me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

MfD nomination of User:Amandaallard05/sandbox

User:Amandaallard05/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amandaallard05/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Amandaallard05/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the history of your sandbox into that of the article, so that full credit is given to all those who worked on the article when it was in your sandbox. All's fine now. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of City First Church (Rockford First Church) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article City First Church (Rockford First Church) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City First Church (Rockford First Church) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ [url description]

[1] [url description]

[1]