User talk:G H Smith

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

Welcome!

Hello, G H Smith, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as One Beautiful World, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Filing Flunky (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of One Beautiful World[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on One Beautiful World requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Filing Flunky (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your draft submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please take a look and respond if possible. If there is no response within seven days, the request may be declined. If this happens, please feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it when you believe the concerns have been addressed. (To resubmit the submission, add the text {{subst:submitdraft}} to the top of the page)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!  Chzz  ►  02:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your draft submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please take a look and respond if possible. If there is no response within seven days, the request may be declined. If this happens, please feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it when you believe the concerns have been addressed. (To resubmit the submission, add the text {{subst:submitdraft}} to the top of the page)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 06:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of "Coalition of Hope" Article[edit]

Hello Excirial, thanks for reveiwing the article [1]. I do see where the tone of the article is not encyclopedic, we'll be working on that over the next few days. This is what happens when you enlist the aid of volunteers from the advertising world. Aside from tone, are there any other issues you detected with the article that would prevent its publication? Please advise, thanks ... GHS G H Smith (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest this article is rather unusual for AFC standards. Most article's which are submitted trough AFC are a few paragraphs long at most, and lack even the most basic form of sourcing. Once this happens an editor is notified about this issue, and they slowly start rebuilding and reshaping the article till it meets the basic criteria. This article on the other hand is - length wise - the equivalent of a fully developed article and quite decent in some regards. Yet it still contains some flaws most starting article's have, and which tend to be iron out after a first review. The unfortunate truth is that there is currently a whole lot of content that i need to comment on.
  • The first thing i notice in this regard is the use of peacock terms. Take for example "highly trained first responders", "extensive air-lift capability" and so one.
  • A second and more prevent issue throughout the entire text is the promotional tone: "COH will be able to respond to unforeseen catastrophic events faster and better equipped than any other military or civilian element in existence" is an example of this, as it is purely a case of (Apologies for the bluntness of the following statement) "Look at how great we are!".
  • A third issue boils down to the basic structure of the article being promotional. The article starts with a first-level heading with the title "Mission Statement" followed by a one line stating the mission. After that there is a second section named "Foundation Imperatives" which lists the organizations goals, and after that there is a third section named "Coalition of Hope Relief Operations", containing the organizations past successes.
  • The article itself seems to have another issue regarding its content, and that is that it tries to cover to many details that are not encyclopedic. It is very unusual to state such a thing, as ofttimes more details are quite welcome to an article, so it is probably best to explain this trough an example. The best example for this issue would be the "Project "EXCELSIOR" section and its underlying sections. This section details the entire plan - from conception to expected results and from retrofitting to the daily operations that will be part of this project. These sections are so incredibly detailed they they often trail into entirely different topics, such as the history of hospital ships, the requirements to use a vessel under DoD and USN regulations, and a quotes and expectations of the future benefits of this ship.
While these sections may sound interesting they don't matter to the article's subject which is the "Coalition of Hope". To emphasize - if i were to ask for a short description of the coalition of hope, would you response include engine statistics for a ship, its commissioning requirements and a list of members for the organization? I doubt it would. Instead it would likely detail the goal, history and accomplishments of the organization. The article should be reviewed in this light as well - a lot of the content is either not required (The entire list of senior staff, the quotes from Mr. Keegan and other persons and the expectations a project has are examples) or better fit for other article's (The "The Vessel" section would work wonders in the Operating history of the USS Nassau (LHA-4) article).
  • A final point would be that the referencing could be stronger. A lot of the references used are self-published, which are par definition not reliable sources. The same goes for Wikipedia article's, since Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source - though it is fine to use the references that are present in those article's.
Now i know that i have been raising a whole lot of issues here, and i know that implementing them all will likely require a lot of work and cutting down written text in the article. For what it is worth i am not exactly enjoying raising all these issues as the article is not nearly as promotional as some (Nor do i believe the promotional sections were intentional promotion), and i can clearly see that quite some effort went into creating the article. The best piece of advice i can give is that it may be more convenient to follow the structure of an already high-quality article when building your own. As an example i would point to the Seacology article, an article which currently has featured article status, which means that it is without doubt the best possible quality around as of current. I would advice following its basic structure - Short introduction on the charity, some historical information and then detailing on current projects and other encyclopedic content. I hope that will help you to restructure the article in a way that addresses the above issues because i am quite certain the charity is notable and something we should have an article on. So for now i wish you the best of luck! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello G H Smith, I am responding to your recent enquiry on my Talk page about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coalition of Hope. There are a number of issues which made me hesitate to accept your article, some of them have already been alluded to by the previous reviewer. The article would benefit from being reduced in size to make it concise, encyclopedic and non-promotional (as I mentioned, it reads like you are using it as an extension of the organisation's website).
On the question of notability, non-profit organisations need to make sure the information about them is verifiable by independent, reliable sources. Bear in mind also Wikipedia's 'golden rule'. The charity's website is definitely not independent and you should avoid copying large chunks from, or citing them to it. Of the other sources in the article:
  • the Harbinger Magazine may help with verification of the facts. But it seems to be a publication of a private corporation, so probably doesn't meet the neutral, journalistic standards of a 'reliable' source.
  • the Global newswire source is a press release, therefore a primary source therefore not 'reliable' or independent either.
  • the ABC news article does not mention Coalition of Hope anywhere, so doesn't count at all towards 'notability'. I can't see any reference to the Coalition of Hope in the MSNBC transcript either.
Therefore I think you need to find some reliable, independent sources that talk about the subject (Coalition of Hope) is some detail, before the subject meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. All the best! Sionk (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?[edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! G H Smith, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sarah (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kilopi (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, G H Smith. You have new messages at Kilopi's talk page.
Message added 22:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kilopi (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, G H Smith. You have new messages at Kilopi's talk page.
Message added 20:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kilopi (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Coalition of Hope, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kadzi (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G_H_Smith&oldid=1144243999"