Talk:Outpost for Hope

Comments[edit]

I did the edits one by one, with an edit summary that explains them. The best way to look at them is to go through the history and look at my edits one by one (That's called the "diff" view). Also, wrote minor comments into the document as hidden comments. In each diff view, they appear . — Sebastian 04:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is fantastic feedback! Thank you. This helps me tons not only on this entry but every other entry I will ever get to work on :D --Inelia (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I put it as a main page again to see if it's accepted this time? --Inelia (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before reposting it, you should solicit feedback from some other editors by leaving messages on their talk pages. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 00:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

The most important single problem for this article is notability. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." A whole article counts as substantial. So far, there's only one link to an independent source - the one to Readers Digest. — Sebastian 04:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added multiple independent sources. Are there any areas that need more information? --Inelia (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good enough for now. However, some of the links are not from reliable sources - more about that below. — Sebastian 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Internal links: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links. Put yourself in the shoes of the reader: It is unlikely that a reader would need to know what an adult is. On the other hand, readers might want to check out articles like mental illness, drug addiction, and homelessness.

External links: Too much text that needs links to the organization's site, such as texts referring to "The Missing Link Registry" and "The Perception Project" can be a sign that the article is only mirroring the external site, and that much of the cited text is not notable. We want balanced articles, so we need a better proportion of links to independent sources. In addition, some people feel that such external links may be placed by people to artificially increase the number of links to their preferred website. — Sebastian 04:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really good point an something that had never crossed my mind, thank you!! --Inelia (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added many internal and external links - thank you! However, several of the external links are problematic. See Wikipedia:External links for details and explanations, in particular the section Links normally to be avoided. Sorry that it's all so complicated! It's just that there are so many people concerned about linkspam that everyone has some concerns they need to see addressed in the guideline.

"Google search on Dec 13th 2007": not a reference.
"Missing Pieces Podcast": Some external links are not reliable. Seems to contradict Links normally to be avoided, #12. http://www.prbuzz.com/outpost-for-hope-in-collaboration-with-lets-bring-them-home-announces-multimedia-contest-2610.html is probably a borderline case.
"An internet search ... did not bring up": not a reference, and original research. Now that's of course a dilemma: You need to show notability, and the fact that they're the only ones doing this is a good point. Therefore, it really would be important to have a independent, reliable source for that claim. — Sebastian 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that a web search can't be used. I couldn't find any references to say it was the only charity dealing with this problem so I will have to leave it out for now. I have added other resources and references that are not problematic to the other sections :)

--Inelia (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

I don't know why you keep removing the definition of the organization from the lead section. Please see Wikipedia:Lead section. You may also look at a few featured articles as examples. — Sebastian 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some information here as well as added some references. --Inelia (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanups[edit]

Hello, Outpost for Hope ... Sebastian asked me to take a look at this sandbox, so I did my WikiGnome thing and added some {{cite web}} templates to make the references look more encyclopedic, as well as a few cosmetics per WP:MOS ... please take a look at WP:CITE, and use the templates for any new references you add ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.199 (talk · contribs) 02:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ... I had to remove this reference:

Quinet, Kenna. "The Missing Missing Toward a Quantification of Serial Murder Victimization in the United States".

because it was in the class of Links normally to be avoided ... if I find any others, I'll just comment in the edit summary. —72.75.72.199 (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments: (a) references should always follow punctuation, (b) whenever possible, use the <title> field on the referenced Web page to supply the |title= field in the tag, and (c) some of your sources do not meet the criteria for WP:RS because they are blogs. —72.75.72.199 (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really great! I've been trying to work out how to format different sections such as the titles and the references, thank you. --Inelia (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]