User talk:Klighed

This is Klighed's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Margaret Woodbridge (social worker) (July 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Possibly meets WP:NACADEMIC but since this is a WP:BLP, certain claims should be verified by a reliable source.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Margaret Woodbridge (social worker) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Klighed! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft

I have removed some unreliable sources in your draft and there are more to remove. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. That gives me a clearer idea of the kind of thing you have in mind.

Regarding the sources you removed in respect of the death of Heidi Koseda (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Margaret_Woodbridge_(social_worker)&diff=prev&oldid=1240094166), they were simply intended by way of context to tell people what the case was, because it doesn't have its own Wikipedia page. You're right though that they did appear to be substantiating the fact that she chaired the panel even though they don't mention her by name.

There are references later in the article that do specifically name Woodbridge as having been appointed to chair the panel. So probably the best thing would be for me to reinstate the sentence you removed but to substantiate it instead with these more appropriate references (currently refs 11 and 12 in Draft:Margaret Woodbridge (social worker)). I could then use the contextual references that you removed to substantiate the more general sentence later in the article saying that the case garnered national attention at the time.

I'll then try to go through the rest of the article following the same pattern as you've demonstrated for the first section.

How does that sound? Klighed (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do whatever good you can to improve the draft. However, I am not certain that being a chair of a panel shows any magnitude of notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following Wikipedia's notability criteria for academics. Woodbridge served as sole editor of the main UK journal in her field (currently refs 9 and 10 in Draft:Margaret Woodbridge (social worker)) and, meeting criterion 8, therefore qualifies. Your doubtfulness does demonstrate, though, that I haven't made the article clear enough. Obviously it would make sense to highlight points that demonstrate notability, such as the journal editorship, in the introductory section.

I'll re-jig following your advice and see what happens. 90.193.70.43 (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the above was by me, I just wasn't logged in. Klighed (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]