Jump to content

User talk:Smmurphy

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobbys1953 (talk | contribs) at 18:57, 6 December 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk • Archives: 1 2
User:Smmurphy: Talk • Contributions • About me • In progress • Scribbles • Heroes • Stream of conscious'
I prefer not breaking up conversations. If you leave a message for me here, I will respond here.If I have started a conversation on your talk page, feel free to respond there, unless I forget, in which case you may feel free to ignore this message.


16:59:44, 1 December 2016 review of submission by Kaforney



Hi Smmurphy,

I've made several revisions to the page after looking at the page with a set of fresh eyes and realizing where I went wrong when creating. Wondering if it makes any difference if the sources cited are configured as footnotes--or if they need to be written in the form to go under the "References" section. Please let me know if one is more valuable over the other.

Thanks! Kaforney (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC) @Kaforney: Thank you for your question. As the article is a draft and may have others look it over, I replied in a comment to the article. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:25, 1 December 2016 review of submission by Kaforney



Thank you Smmurphy for that response! Incredibly helpful! This is my first time creating an article so I'm still learning about what's considered encyclopedic vs. advertising. Your direct feedback and tips are much appreciated and extremely constructive for my understanding.

Kaforney (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. The advice I added to the article is actually a bit harsh, it signals to other people who might consider/approve articles for creation what I think are the issues with your sources. Looking at the article again, here is even more specific advice. tl; dr, start smaller.
Your lede talks about the different contractors used and includes mission statement-like sentiments, all of which could be cut. A better lede might simply say:
Skye Canyon is a master planned community in the northwest region of Las Vegas Valley, located in Clark County, Nevada. It is being developed by Olympia Companies in conjunction with New York investment firms Stonehill Capital Management and Spectrum Group Management. First construction of the community began in the fall of 2014.
I would drop the recent developments section, they won't continue to be recent developments for long and wikipedia isn't a newspaper.
The location section could better read:
Skye Canyon is located along U.S. Route 95 in the Las Vegas Valley about 13 miles from downtown Las Vegas. It was intentionally selected for its proximity to Mount Charleston and Lee Canyon.
The climate section is fine, it is a bit too much info given how short the rest of the article might be, but perhaps the rest of the article will grow as the community does.
For the history section, I'd write:
Initial planning of the community began during the last quarter of 2013 and plans were officially approved by the city on April 10, 2014. The first neighborhoods to be built and released to the public in Skye Canyon were Teton Falls, Teton Cliffs, and Evergreen. On Jan. 21, 2015, City Council approved the stretch of Horse Drive between U.S. 95 and Iron Mountain Road, as well as the segment of Fort Apache Road between U.S. 95 and Moccasin Road to be renamed Skye Canyon Park Drive to begin establishing the community as a distinct territory. Hualapai Way between Grand Teton Drive and Moccasin Road was renamed Skye Village Road at the same junction in time. Eagle Canyon Park was first opened to the public January 2016 and the master community held a grand opening on March 19, 2016.
But even that is a bit much. Perhaps someone else would recommend some more cutting.
I would combine the neighborhoods and amenities sections. This combined section would consist of one sentence which basically names the neighborhoods. Then another couple sentences with the names of the parks and the neighborhoods they are in, including, perhaps, the two parks outside the boundary. Community buildings might not really belong in the article at this point.
The schools section is ok, but cut the list, so all you need is the paragraph you wrote:
Plans for Skye Canyon's ongoing development includes the building of new school facilities for elementary, middle, and high school education, but construction will be subject to Clark County school funding--to be determined when that phase of development approaches. William & Mary Scherbenback and James Bilbray Elementary schools are located inside of Skye Canyon's borders, while Ralph Cadwallader Middle, Edmund Escobedo Sr. Middle, and Arbor View High schools are all located within five miles of the community. Somerset Academy charter school lies approximately four miles south of Skye Canyon's southern most border, with separate facilities for elementary and middle/high school students.
Then make sure each paragraph has a citation at the end and most if not all of your citations are from third party sources. In my opinion, that would be a good place to start. After that, you can look at sources and see if there is anything else that encyclopedic to add. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:11, 5 December 2016 review of submission by MattyJ44


Have all the other accounting softwares listed in the article Comparison of accounting software satisfied the notability requirement? MattyJ44 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MattyJ44: I'm glad you've asked, take a look at the sources used in those pages. From what I see, most articles cite independent news sources. I think that is the main issue with the LedgerLite pagep; In my opinion reliable sources are usually considered those which have an editorial process independent of the article's source. Can you add some sources like that to LedgerLite that are about LedgerLite? Smmurphy(Talk) 20:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean - can I find an article in the New York Times or some academic journal about LedgerLite? It's very unlikely I'd say. MattyJ44 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MattyJ44: It need not by the New York Times. Perhaps a respected tech or business paper has an article on the program. Articles online are fine. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for that. Do you know how long an article can stay in draft before it gets deleted? MattyJ44 (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Quite a long time so long as the article doesn't contain anything that clearly violates a policy (for instance defamation of a living person or copyright violations). Smmurphy(Talk) 00:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:07:14, 6 December 2016 review of submission by Adrian.94


For the article "Queensland University Exchange Student Society", I don't understand what the expectations are to make this article credible.

The article I'm trying to add is for a university society, it's not like there are peer-reviewed journals on the topic. All references to the club are within the online sphere of the university, as would be expected of most university clubs. Many of the clubs at UQ have wikipedia pages, despite much lower membership or notability, and judging by those pages, the referencing for this article is at least as adequate. Please see the approved pages of "University of Queensland Business Association" and "University of Queensland Medical Society" as examples and tell me how these are acceptable yet my article is not.

Thank you. I'll try and make some improvements but I don't understand the different standards.

@Adrian.94:Thank you for your message. The standard for having an article accepted at articles for creation is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, although reviewers have their own interpretations. In my opinion, while it seems clear that the QUEST exists and is useful for many people, it isn't clear that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is the general notability guideline for what is suitable for a wikipedia article. As the article is, perhaps it should be made a subsection of an article on QU student societies. If independent, third-party sources discuss the body in depth, that would go a long ways towards showing its notability.
The two pages you mention did not go through the articles for creation process, but rather were created directly in wikipedia's main space. As with the QUEST article, those two pages have issues with sourcing. If they were submitted to articles for creation, they might also have been rejected.
Any page may be nominated for deletion. The two pages you mention may be nominated for deletion. If so, they may be deleted. Often when a page is nominated for deletion, someone will volunteer to add sources establishing notability, increasing the chances that the article not be deleted. Deleting pages can require a number of editors to look over the work and is frustrating for them and for the article creator as well as for any volunteers who try to keep the page from being deleted. I have declined the submission, which avoids the chance that the article be nominated for deletion before it is ready.
Since you are interested in QUEST, it would be very helpful for wikipedia if you found some independent, third-party sources that can be used as citations. Indeed, it would be nice if you added such sources to the other two pages you mentioned. Once you've done so for the QUEST article, you can resubmit if for creation. Depending on a number of things, I or another reviewer may accept it. While I do not recommend it, you may also try to create the QUEST article directly in the main space rather than draft space. Doing so would be frowned upon, as new users are encouraged to use articles for creation and draft space. Also, doing so could likely result in nomination for deletion. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:57:17, 6 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Bobbys1953


Thank you for your feedback. I shall make the necessary changes relative to the tone in an attempt to avoid what you term as "peacock" terms, but I'd appreciate if you could elaborate a bit more with regards to the "Inline Citations" since I have included references below for source materials. Do you mean simply number them within the paragraph sections as well then cross reference them in the reference section?Bobby Salerno 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Bobby Salerno 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smmurphy&oldid=753362866"