Talk:21st Century Tiger
|WikiProject Cats||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Permission has been granted by 21st Century Tiger. Please do not delete this page. An email has been sent to permissions@wikipedia from the 21st Century Tiger email address. --21CT 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are a few comments you might find useful.
First, I know you'd like to get this article to featured status, so take a look at The Scout Association of Hong Kong, which is a featured article that covers an organization. (The article contains some Chinese characters which may not display correctly on your screen.) That will give you an idea of the level of detail that we're going to have to be able to reach in order to get this article featured. It's possible but it will require a bit of work.
Second, you might also want to read the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. It's pretty clear you're not trying to hide your affiliation with 21CT, and that's definitely the right way to go. You might add a note to your user page just declaring that affiliation, to be completely clear. The conflict of interest policy says you should consider proposing edits rather than making them directly, but in this case I think that would be overkill. That policy is intended to cover situations such as a political campaign manager editing the article on the politician he works for, and other situations such as that.
Another relevant policy covers what Wikipedia refers to as neutral point of view. An example: in an early draft of this article, you wrote that 21CT is "a unique fundraising partnership". This isn't neutral -- perhaps other tiger charities would dispute this, and in any case it's clearly written as an endorsement of the partnership. If some news coverage existing referring to it as unique, you could mention that it was often referred to that way; if it was regularly referred to as unique in most coverage it could probably go in as you originally had it, with a footnote to support the description. So the effect is that you have to describe 21CT in neutral, factual terms. You can still mention all the positive things about it, but they have to be supported with references and described in such a way that someone who is not a big proponent of 21CT would agree with the factual accuracy of the wording.
OK, a couple of questions. First, what are the sources that we can use to write the article? I've created a separate "references" section, to hold a list of sources -- this is a common way to do it in well-referenced articles because it lists the sources separately for a reader to review and it also makes it much quicker to add footnotes as you can refer to the references in a summarized way. I put "Riding the Tiger" in the references section, and edited the footnote that referred to it to simplify it. So are there any printed works that can be used to provide some of the information? This would definitely include any books, but also scholarly papers, or proceedings of conferences, or anything like that? Mentions in studbooks?
The website for 21CT itself can also be used, but it's not the best source for certain things. It can be used for facts about organization and history, but we probably shouldn't use it to document achievements, at least not without a supporting statement from other sources such as news coverage.
Do you have access to something like Lexis-Nexis to search for news coverage? That would be very helpful.
I've got to run now; I'll try to look in again later today or on Monday. The other thing to discuss would be the article structure, but I'll wait till you've had a look at the Scouts article I linked to above and see what you think after you look at that. Mike Christie (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Mike, the scout article is huge - I don't think there is any conceivable way that I can do anything like that, I am only part time on 21CT and this page is not my priority. Thanks for the advice on the references - they are hard to format in the correct manner and the help pages are not particulary helpful! How do you suggest I treat references to online articles? They seem alittle overcomplicated. Do I need to put the access date?
- For online references, yes, the access date is useful, because sometimes online sources change over time. I will take a look at the refs you've put in and if I can tweak them I will. Please also feel free to drop me a note on my talk page to ask for help on anything that comes up. I'll also have a look at the links you've put in and see what I can do about improving the article, though I'm hesitant to work on it directly as I don't really know the topic well. Mike Christie (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)