Talk:Lemur Conservation Foundation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lemur Conservation Foundation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Simponafotsy (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

External links

I have removed several external links. Wikipedia does not allow links to copyrighted content which is hosted by anyone other than the copyright holder. Of the other links; one was a duplicate of the official site which is already in the infobox, the other was to a blog. Links to blogs are discouraged, see External links to avoid #11. You can find out more about external links in Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. Jbh ^Talk 01:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simponafotsy: You may want to use the TheEdChannel20 video as a source. Right now there are not enough independent reliable sources to demonstrate this organization passed Wikipedia's general notability guidelines or Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations.
For articles the most important thing to be done is establish notability. For this we have out general notability guidelines which in short require significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. There are also various specific notability guidelines which give additional, usually easier to meet, criteria to establish notability. In this case those are the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Typically you need maybe three reliable sources which are completely independent of the subject that have about three paragraphs of material about the subject. If an article subject meets our notability criteria an article can be kept but it is not required to be kept. If the subject does not meet those criteria than there may not be an article on that subject included in Wikipedia. We do not make any judgement about the subject's importance or contribution to society we only judge if there has been enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to allow us to write an informative and neutral article.
For new editors I suggest finding three independent reliable sources, like articles in major newspapers, widely circulated magazines etc that give significant coverage to the subject. Significant coverage usually means several paragraphs that talk about the subject. These sources must have strong editorial control, have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and be by third parties who are completely independent of the article's subject ie no press releases or other promotional/advertising material. You should also read this page about writing your first Wikipedia article before you get started.
Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} me ({{ping|Jbhunley}}) from any talk page. Jbh ^Talk 01:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

@Simponafotsy: This article needs more independent, third party reliable source to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. The video may be a good source and I found:

Adam Davies (2013-09-02). "The Loneliest Lemur on Earth". Sarasota. Retrieved 2024-11-07.
"Florida Lemurs". TheEdChannel20. 2017-05-15. Retrieved 2024-11-07.

It should have at least three good, independent sources. I will see if I can find more. Jbh ^Talk 16:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simponafotsy: What is AZA? Also, this really needs better sourcing. Right now it is borderline at best, particularly since everything seems to come from their own source material. Jbh ^Talk 19:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Simponafotsy: re the pictures: If you can contact the photographer and have them release them under an appropriate free license that would be good. Jbh ^Talk 19:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another source:

Haire, Pat (2004-01-01). "Out of Africa: endangered lemurs find a champion--and a refuge--in Myakka City". Sarasota Magazine. Retrieved 2024-11-07.

Jbh ^Talk 22:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from User talk:Simponafotsy

In reply to "Hi JBH, I have added several independent sources, see citations #9 and #11. Is this now sufficient to remove some of the warnings at the top of the page?" — Preceding text originally posted on User talk:Simponafotsy (diff) by Simponafotsy (talk⋅contribs) 22:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My personal rule of thumb, and it is just that since other editors will certainly have other opinions, is that most (closer to 75% than 50% ) of the non-trivial statements should be derived from independent, third party reliable sources. So, for instance of these claims: The significance of the training programs; Collaboration with/support of the wildlife refuges (5 claims – Tampolo, EnviroKidz Giving Back, support Anjanaharibe-Sud Special Reserve, support Marojejy National Park, and community based conservation programs) ; Implicit assertions that the associated centers (Toomey Lemur Pavilion, Marilyn K. North Lemur Lodge, The Mianatra Center for Lemur Studies and the Anne & Walter Bladstrom Library) are significant in some way that makes them worth mentioning; That the association with the colleges and universities are significant and the association with Tattersall — most should be supported by something in a third party source. Support can vary from brief mention to a couple of sentences. What is important is demonstrating that the point is significant enough to be mentioned by a third party. In the case of interviews things are a bit tricky. Someone from the organization bringing up or 'plugging' the topic is not something I would consider third party interest but an interview which focuses significantly on the topic would. Whether there is enough third party vs self derived information is hard to assess because the citations are just tacked on in groups at the end of sections. I would recommend placing the citations following the text/statement which it is being used to support — just as you would footnote an idea originated by a colleague in a paper.

Also, please remember, I am just an editor here like you are. I spend my volunteer time reviewing new articles and sometimes working with new editors so I have developed an understanding of the policies and guidelines here along with my ideas of what makes an article good but other editors have their own views. In fact, it is perfectly OK for you to remove the maintenance tags yourself if, after reading the links on the tags, you disagree with me.

PS Lemurs are cool

Jbh ^Talk 23:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: I'm going to be helping with this article. I have many featured articles to my name, particularly about lemurs, but I haven't written on here in a couple years. I'd like your opinion about the following source: A Visit to the Lemur Conservation Foundation’s Lemur Reserve. It's a blog, but it's hosted by the Lemur Conservation Network (LCN), which is a project of the IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group. The author is the organization's co-founder. The only thing I can find about blogs is on WP:BLPSPS, where some blogs are acceptable "so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". The piece has opinions, but I do not plan on using them. I only plan to use it for it's facts about the organization, such as its history and programs. Your thoughts? – Maky ^« talk » 05:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maky: I do not see an issue for non-controversial stuff per WP:ABOUTSELF. What this article needs though is a couple solid third party RS. As it stands the article would most likely be deleted under the new WP:NORG guideline if it ever went to AfD so getting it to meet those requirements is where I think effort would be better spent. Jbh ^Talk 17:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Copy. As I said, I'll be working on this article. Progress will be slow because I'm working almost 12 hours a day and volunteering on the weekends. But relatively soon there will be a thorough rewrite complete with citations.