Talk:Reborn doll

Linkspam and references

I believe the consistent links to their sites being added by certain folks who sell reborn dolls are linkspam. See WP:LINKSPAM. "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." See also WP:CONFLICT regarding conflict of interest: "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates." I have removed the linkspam; none of it seemed particularly notable on its own.

Regarding references, the only reference given was a link to a 3 minute excerpt of a Channel 4 documentary. I watched it, and it didn't really serve as a good reference here; it's just the intro to the show so it doesn't really say much other than that these dolls exist. So I moved it to an External Links section and added a request for better references. I don't know how easy they are to find, though. ManekiNeko | Talk 09:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link spam. Those who plan to add their personal sites, please read the link to Wikipedia's guidelines above. DeeKenn (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image: Newborn or Reborn?

That doll in the image looks like it came from a kit. Which is it: a newborn or reborn? DeeKenn (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Vanity-press references

The only references listed are two vanity-press books. Neither is acceptable as reliable sources. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

14

I altered the following troublesome phrase to reflect that the doll's age is immaterial and I put in a citation needed tag:

a reborn doll is no longer suitable as a child's play doll and it is actually illegal to purchase one under the age of 14

However, beyond a citation, the sentence is still too simplistic. To wit,

• Where is it illegal?
• Is it a civil or criminal violation?
• Is it the child or vendor who violates the law?
• Can a child legally buy a reborn doll for a parent?
• How do these relate to dolls used in middle schools for training?

Unless we can pin down particulars, I believe we should remove the phrase altogether.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the phrase above because there are NO laws concerning the age of a person who buys reborn dolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollycollector (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Educational Project Editing

This article has become an educational assignment for several students we have purposed this draft outline and changes for the article and will be updating it consistently within the next several weeks. Any suggestions will be extremely helpful.

Edit Definition

(I think this can be edited for example I don’t know if this is the appropriate place for the ebay statement. Also it may need a reference but I don’t know because it’s kind of a definition it might be a fact. This is something we can talk about.)

History

(how started there is info on how started from such dolls like preemies)

Creating Reborn Dolls Reborn Dolls Kits

(What are they, how to get them, what they cost, what you do with them)

Edit Technique

(Article is started already with this already but I think it could be fixed up, maybe put it in prose rather than bulleted list, because I read somewhere on Wikipedia they prefer prose then lists. Also, it may need a reference. Since this is the basic technique most the websites say similar things so it should be easy to find a reference.)

Add ons

(Article started with some add on in techniques much more can be done, and can talk about clothing here too. They wear children’s clothes because doll clothes don’t fit.)

Collecting Reborn Dolls

Purchasing(How to get, prices)

Designer baby (can order premade, make own with kit, or artists usually customize with preferences or can even send pictures to make look like loved one)

Conventions(Conventions, and classes are held, I have two magazines that talk about conventions sponsored by Doll Reader magazine that may be useful)

Reknowned artists?(I’ve read that some artists are very well known in the reborn world, but this may need more researching and could be a questionable topic)

Doll Magazine(As stated before sponsors conventions, also can buy dolls through Doll Reader but I have info on this in the magazines, may also be online on website)

Affiliated Organizations(I saw on some Reborner websites that there seems to be organizations the reborners belong to they may be worth looking into)

Mothering Reborn Dolls

Why (This section is started but I think can be renamed and definitely expanded with more research. Reborn dolls are obviously more than just collectables and many women buy them and make them for various motives such as something many refer to as cuddle therapy, many use them after miscarriages or infant deaths and so on. They are basically being used as substitute children)

Critiques

(Besides most articles just labeling it as creepy it would be good to find what medical professionals say about using the dolls as substitute children rather than just collectables. So far I have only found a newspaper article with an interview with a psychiatrist; I suggest we try to find more)

Media Attention

Expand (I’m sure there is more than is listed and I think this needs to be edited)

Further Reading

Books (Google books, and perhaps other sources have some books, many of them are just about the technique but they also have information, I suggest getting more information from these rather than reborner websites when possible if they list similar information. Also it I think a few could be listed in this section)

References Edit (Wikipedia has also stated references need to added, we might also want to proved better references when we edit what is there) External Links Edit and add (For example http://reborndolls.org, it seems to be the organization so may be an important website, and others) --KayPet (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A fine plan, I am looking forward to seeing other members of your group engage in discussion and article building soon! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the general outline is fairly extensive,thanks for the work Kaylee. I'm going to start doing research on purchasing and the acutal market out there for them, maybe try and find out sales vary country to country?Angela9298 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki work

So Glen wanted me to assign him something to work on so I told him to work on the supplies, the additions that can be made to the dolls under the reborning section, and the further reading section. I am going to keep working a little more on history but there is not a lot there and the collecting section. However, if you find information please feel free to add to any section whether you think someone is working on it or not these are not rigid, and I think it will turn out better if we are all working on it together to make sure everything makes sense. Good luck guys --KayPet (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kaylee, i was just wondering on this bracketing for redirects to other wikipedia pages whats the rule for how many we can do because i can set a link for a lot of stuff, but i looked at a featured article and it does not utilize every link you can make. Also, dont send it in yet cause i still wanna make some more adjustments where you feel there needs to be some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpwood (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reborn_doll" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpwood (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

I have removed copyright violations on this page here by GpWood and here by Meh40. I think a few words here and there have been changed, but they are basically straight copy and pastes from other websites. They did cite a reference back to the website the information was sourced from, which is good, but that doesn't make copying it directly ok. You can see on both websites that there is a copyright notice at the foot of the pages.

Wikipedia licences its content using the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and, except where otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License. This means that copyrighted text from other websites cannot be copied into it. This is all explained on Wikipedia's policies here. It's kind of long, but the basic rule is don't copy stuff straight off other websites.

Other than this, the detailed list of the IRDA's code of ethics was probably out of place. Fine to summarise if the article was about the IRDA, but this article isn't just about them. And the stuff from reborndolls.biz wasn't neutrally enough phrased. I spotted them straight off as possible copy 'n' pastes because they had been added as one large block of text in a single edit, unlike the edits around them. Also by the chatty tone and the addressing the reader directly (i.e. "you"), which isn't done on an encyclopaedia.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, I totally endorse it. Guys, as a rule of thumb, copy and paste is not acceptable both on Wikipedia and in any kind of college assignment! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Draft review

At this points, I'd have the following comment: (1) feel free to rewrite and restore content that was removed, once you understand the issues discussed above (2) There are statements that miss inline citations; as a rule of thumb, every sentence should have its own citation (since others can later add things between your sentences and make it confusing to know what is sourced) - see WP:CITE (3) some parts need more hyperlinks - see WP:LINKING (4) Overall, longer paragraphs are preferred to single short short sentences (5) Raw html links are not acceptable as references, they should be formatted with information like author, title and last accessed date - see CITE policy linked above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Remaining major edits

Hey Everyone,I think the article is at a point where we need to evaluate everything we have and decide any other major points we need to add. If anyone feels we're missing out an important section let us know so we can address it. We should also start to look at the style and make sure it fits with the traditional wiki style. Thanks Kaylee for all your hard work! Angela9298 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Citing

Kaylee, I fixed the material that needed more citations. Also, I don't know if you talked about this but the supplies section also need citings per sentence. I changed a few minor things but overall I think the article is pretty solid. If you think of anything else that needs to be done before we submit it let me know I can work on it tonight.Angela9298 (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One quick note about citations - please don't use an organisation's website or other material to support claims about that organisation. For example Discover Dolls ... is a world authority on reborning, with a reference to the Discover Dolls website. I've marked that one as dubious. Same issue with Lifelike Dolls is North America's Premiere Reborning and Sculpting Magazine, which I've also marked as dubious. Such statements require third-party references. Mindmatrix 21:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Kaylee, i was just wondering on this bracketing for redirects to other wikipedia pages whats the rule for how many we can do because i can set a link for a lot of stuff, but i looked at a featured article and it does not utilize every link you can make. Also, dont send it in yet cause i still wanna make some more adjustments where you feel there needs to be some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpwood (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely positive how many is appropriate, however the prof suggested more in his comments so if I find that Wikipedia has an article for something I have just been redirecting. If this is improper I'm sure we will be told and just remove the brackets. I will be sending it at 11 o'clock, that way its definitely turned in today like the syllabus says and if I do something wrong it gives me time to figure it out. --KayPet (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reborn doll/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I am going to review your article.

Read the second and third paragraphs of comments I left before doing paragraph one.

One thing this article needs is a good lead. See WP:Lead, or basically, the first section above the article (it starts with "A reborn doll is a manufactured vinyl play doll") needs to be a summary of the entire article. Maybe put in a 0-2 sentence overview of section, depending on how long and important each is. With an article of this length, I would aim for 3-4 good size paragraphs of summarizing in the lead.

Another issue I'm seeing is that all your sources may not be reliable. The rules are at WP:RS. I think you may not enjoy this part, because it looks like a lot of the sources are not allowed. All is not lost, though, because the article is so long. You can just remove anything that's attached to unreliable source, and the article will be shorter, but still eligible for GA status. First, all references to stores probably have to be removed. We can discuss these, and I'm doing this very quickly, so I may not be correct about all of them, but here's a quick rundown. Looking at this version, so we know which number goes with which reference. The good ones are: 3,4,5,7,15,16, maybe 17 but probably not, 20, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55. The rest are probably a no go. Wine & Excrement is actually a joke site.

I imagine that you're working on a deadline, and don't want to spend forever working on this article. The fastest thing you can do is just remove every sentence that isn't backed up by the references I mentioned above. Then move around what you have left, and put it into about 3 or 4 sections. Write a lead that summarizes what you have left, and depending on your writing abilities, you may be good to go. Ask any questions here, and I'll try an answer them quickly. I might be able to help you find a couple refs if you can't find one on some important thing. I'm going to ask for more input on reborndollhouse.com, since you've used it so many times, and if it can stay it will make it much easier. I asked here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the input. We agree that there is a lot of info from fan sites that need to gotten rid of. My group and I are going to get going on either getting rid of unreliable information or seeing if we can find better sources to support the information. However, I was a little with this statement "The good ones are: 3,4,5,7,15,16, maybe 17 but probably not, 20, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55. The rest are probably a no go." You listed one of our news sources as okay but pretty much all our other ones as unreliable. Because I was confused I took this issue to our prof, who did say that news resources were borderline but he took a look at what we used and said that he would determine them as acceptable because many are mainstream news sources, and also some are used more to illustrate such as the media section where we say that doctor Phil had a show about it and the link is set up to show the reader that Dr. Phil did in fact have a show about it and it was in the media. Lastly, there is not much academic resources on this subject, so the news resources are about all we have to go on. Is there maybe a way we could restate the sentences so the news sources would be more acceptable? If so could you provide an example of how? Thanks you--KayPet (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to say all the news ones are OK. Which news sources did I not list? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay sorry its probably just a misunderstanding. I was just confused when you said "but probably not, 20, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55" because those are all the news sources like abc and msnbc.Thanks again--KayPet (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted the statement - that comment was attached to ref 17, like so: "...maybe 17 but probably not...". I think the others were all deemed OK. Mindmatrix 22:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. Only 17 is iffy out of the bunch. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes, and left an outline for my group on these changes below, if you could take a look and tell me what you think that would be helpful. Also, if I could get a verdict on the Reborn Doll House site I'm not really sure what to do with that stuff yet. I've been frequently looking at the help page you linked too but the only response so far is my teacher who is torn, because there is not really other resources that cover the fabrication and such thinks to that extent. Thanks for your help--KayPet (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That source is not going to get an OK, I'm pretty sure. I just wanted to check since it's used so many times. This NY Times article talks a bit about construction, if you want to use it. I would remove all the reborndollhouse.com references, and do whatever kind of paragraph you can with the NY Times article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I'll work tom on merging together different sources along with the one you've suggested to get as close as i can to the detail we have. --KayPet (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If corroborated by NYT, I think the reborndollhouse.com source could be left, as it may be useful for some readers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best if reborndollhouse is just used as an external link, even if the NY Times says the same thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Would the for dummies series of books be considered a reliable source? thanks--KayPet (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It's OK for talking about Reborn Dolls. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good article edits

Hey guys, The newspaper sources were fine. So that being said what we have to do is go through the things that don't have a reliable and look in newspaper and other reliable sites to see if we can find anything to support it if. if not then its going to have to be deleted. Try not deleting something without making an announcement that you've looked though, just in case someone else is seeing if they can find a reliable source for it. Here's some suggestions instead of just looking for Reborn Doll as a search word or phrase look For IRDA to see if that pops up in anything. Also the Carnegie library website provides remote access to newspaper, magazine, and other archives and databases that I have found helpful. Lastly, wait to work on anything from the doll house website I am still waiting to see if this is going to be reliable enough. Good Luck--KayPet (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to delete the wine and excrement stuff because the reviewer has already said it is a hoax website and I couldn;t find anything serious about it.--KayPet (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good ref, in case you need it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay here's the deal guys. I've looked through the outline and this is what I think were safe with and what we still need to work on. History (good)

Collecting

Purchasing (good)

Associations and org

IRDA (good)

Magazines- (Doll reader good)

Conferences and Conventions (everything should be okay except for the Tiny Treasures Part still researching)

Fabrication

Types (good with Berenguer babies and ashton drake. But OOAK and Ethnic need better sources)

Kits (halfway okay but need to find better sources for the preemie stuff)

Supplies (I think its good)

Rebourning (I think this part is now okay)

additions(good)

care (tried to change to common knowledge, if anyone thinks it isn't,feel free to change it)

Mothering (Good)

Debate

Criticism (Good)

Benefits (good)

Media attention (Good) --KayPet (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your posts. ;-) It sounds like you've got everything under control. With Good Articles, they have to be broad, but not comprehensive. So, don't think you have to cover everything. You guys picked well when you chose this article and not History of the family. The size of that article would be fine for the subject of Reborn Dolls (that article should be 5-10 times larger, unfortunately for those students). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys I think I fixed the Doll Reader magazine section but the other mags are probably a no go I can't find anything on them. I've updated the outline above the Dollhouse site is a no go so i have redo's in for all those. I'll be working on that a little later and the other stuff too. Let me know if you find anything on anything if you don't let me know and we'll discuss deleting it.--KayPet (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the fabrication reborning part should be okay now too.--KayPet (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Same with Purchasing--KayPet (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Same with Supplies--KayPet (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I took out the reborndollhouse.com citing with the care, however I couldn't a reliable cite to support the information. I rewrote it to be self-explanitory, so I do not believe it needs any citations. If anyone disagrees, that's fine, we can take the section out. Angela9298 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't have a ref, it should probably be removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Your professor and I have been discussing the article/project here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have found sources to support some more of the kit information and the doll types info that I will be working on later, and may be able to find something on care, but haven't looked yet. Peregrine I read the convo between you and my prof. I am wondering if the changes I have made so far are okay? Also, besides then fixing the intro things, if the edits I have made so far are okay what else needs to be reedited? Thanks--KayPet (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What you're doing is fine. I don't really want to get into the prose until the article is using nothing but reliable sources, since the prose will probably change. The next thing to do is get rid of the non-reliable sources. Looking at this version. Sources #1, 21, 25, 26, 27, and 30 don't look reliable. If you think they are, just explain why, here.

Ref 34 is a youtube video of a relible source, but they don't have the legal authority to put that video on youtube (basically, it's a copyright violation), so we're not allowed to link to it. You can cite the show itself, without the youtube link. You can use something like Template:Cite video to do so, if you can figure out the info for it. Same thing with ref 42.

Yeah i tried to follow the link to how to properly cite the video, but im not sure if i did it correctly, if you could tell me what needs to be altered i would greatly appreciate it.--Gpwood (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It turns out it's a crazy pain in the rear. I'll just do them myself. The one point that you should learn is that it's almost never OK to link to YouTube. This is one of those that is not OK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The History Page says you want to keep trying to get cite video working, but I am still a little confused about what you would like me to do.--Gpwood (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Overall, it's looking pretty good. If you deal with the above comments, then next thing is to go through and condense all single sentence paragraphs into fewer, larger paragraphs. Also, the mini lists like Formation, Objective, and Code of Ethics under the International Reborn Doll Artists (IRDA) section should be combined into a single paragraph. Same with the other mini lists such as the ones under Types and Magazines. Also, think about not having sections below Associations and organizations and Magazines and just letting those sections be the lowest level for their parts. Basically two levels of section headers, but not three. I'll keep looking for questions and comments. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Im confused about what you mean by have two levels of section headers, do you want me to combine the magazines into one whole paragraph? --Gpwood (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, make sure all the refs that go with a magazine indicate that they are associated with a magazine. The Catherine Read ones, for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher i have no idea where your posting your comments to my question, i see your typing something because the history page shows me your edits, but i can not find what you are saying. Im pretty confused at this point with what im supposed to do and hopefully you can help my naiveness. Below are the examples I am referring too. Thanks again (cur) (prev) 22:20, 25 July 2009 Peregrine Fisher (talk | contribs) (32,321 bytes) (good enough) (undo) (cur) (prev) 22:19, 25 July 2009 Peregrine Fisher (talk | contribs) (32,257 bytes) (getting there) (undo) --Gpwood (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Video Citing

I am still confused at what needs to be done for the youtubes i see in the history section your asking to still cite the other video, however i do not know which one you mean. Im referring to this comment 22:43, 25 July 2009 Peregrine Fisher (talk | contribs) (32,454 bytes) (→Media attention: cite video for other youtube video) (undo) --Gpwood (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)