Talk:Connie Johnson (fundraiser)

Recent Tags.
. I see that you have recently tagged this article. I am concerned that the tags have been placed. I don't understand how the subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG given the wide ranging coverage and the awarding of an OAM. Further I'm unsure of why the peacock and advert tags were placed. As the creator of the page I realise that my assessment may not be as objective as others. I am not being critical of your assessment, but merely looking for guidance firstly, to enable me to remove these tags and secondly, on how I can improve my editing to avoid these tags in the future. I am looking forward to your reply. 8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The style of the article is that of a promotional memorial, written as if its purpose was to promote the charity, to the extent that I have been considering listing it for a deletion discussion. And I would have listed it, except that I noticed to Order of Australia (even though I notice she was awarded the lowest class, which is unlimited in number and probably does not make anyone notable by itself).
 * The peacock nature is primarily the extravagant quotations; I have made a start at removing some of them. Although it is factual that they were given, it is still not encyclopedic content.
 * For articles involving pathos, such as this, it is necessary to try to be strictly neutral and nonemotional in the writing. Some ways to do this are to avoid one-sentence paragraphs & to avoid a chronology of medical detail. You already did one important thing, to use last names, not first names to refer to people, except to avoid confusions--it can be best to go a little further, and use "she" at least half the time.
 * It's good that  you didn'ttry to write a separate article on the foundation-- it's really small in terms of money.
 * As for refs, try to find a better source for Order of Australia than local newspapers.
 * And one glamorous picture, OK; but two? .  DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks for the reply. I still can't see the promotional style of the article, I tried very hard to mention the facts and keep promotion out of it.  Perhaps you could help me out with some suggestions.
 * I find it interesting that you say the OAM is not notable on its own. The the OAM is awarded on Australia Day.  Names appear on a list and everyone goes to a ceremony, queues up and gets it pinned to their lapel by the Governor General so, generally I would agree with you. In this case, protocols had to be broken and special exemptions applied for, to be able to present this award at that time.  The OAM cannot be awarded posthumously.  The Governor General made a special visit to personally present the award.  I think that is notable in itself and worthy of a much higher award.  As for references for the OAM, it might help if you understood that the majority of Australian newspapers are either Murdoch or Fairfax owned.  The Bendigo Advertiser is a daily paper that is owned by Fairfax, hardly a minor local paper.  The Latrobe Valley Express is also  Farifax owned.  I simply chose the articles that gave the best coverage of the event.  In this case the stories were written by the same journalist but the editor was different,  I don't really see what difference the name on the mast head makes in that case.
 * I used the one sentence paragraphs in an effort to cut to the chase, take the emotion out of it, and not pad the article out with useless information. I think that it is important for the reader to understand the order in which things occurred in her life to gain an appreciation of the subject.  I don't really understand what you are getting at with that statement.  Perhaps you could help out with some examples here too?
 * Please don't think that I am trying to be argumentative by asking these questions. I am very keen to improve my editing skills.  You are an experienced editor and I value your input.  I am very keen to improve my editing and I could learn a lot from you.  8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * OA
 * Precedent for the OA is our decision that in the UK system MBE and even the OBE are not notable. I in past years tried several times to argue that at least OBEs was notable, but it was always concluded otherwise. The most recent statement in our practice is at Articles for deletion/Yasmin Bevan. An earlier statement in a perhaps more definitive place is at the Talk for Notability (People)  at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2009, which was confirmed at Articles for deletion/Thomas Clifford Peters  The Order of the British Empire and the OA each have five ranks, and I think the levels correspond,  so this would imply that only the 3 higher ranks of the OA make someone notable.


 * I decided last night to check this against our general practice before I replied to you: Using popups, it seemed that at Category:Recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia the overwhelming majority of the individuals are sports figures that clearly met WP:ATHLETE or legislators who clearly meet WP:POLITICIAN, with the third largest group being entertainment figures, and the 4th senior academics who would meet WP:PROF. The fifth seemed to have significant roles in Australian history or in Indigenous affairs or met WP:MILHIS. Scanning quickly those who were otherwise, I found about 10 or so out of the 843 articles which might be questionable; Looking at some recent list of Honours, almost none (1/20 to 0)  had  WP articles.
 * I have just done the same for the next higher rank, Members. At Category:Members of the Order of Australia, there seems to be a greater diversity, but the two largest groups in addition to those for MOA are senior professionals in a variety of professions and senior civil servants. As would be expected, a considerably higher proportion of those (1/10 to 1/5) on the more recent  honours lists seem to have articles, and probably some more could.


 * Referencing and other matters
 * Using a relatively local paper implies that no national paper carried it, which seems unlikely. A useful rule of thumb is to use the most reliable source, as well as the one with most details.
 * Yes, one needs to show the sequence of events in her life, but the question is the amount of detail, especially detail which might seem to be of a tabloid nature.
 * "I used the one sentence paragraphs in an effort to cut to the chase, take the emotion out of it," Actually, it adds the emotion to it. Think of what you;ve seen in the world. It's a routine technique of PR writing and tabloids, not even of serious newspapers. The most serious newspapers do is to to use a single one sentence paragraph as an equivalent of a sub-heading, as newspapers do not customarily use such headings, but rely on the writing style to mark divisions. It certainly is never used in references books, so it should not be used in an encyclopedia.


 * I positively enjoy replying to any good faith question, whether its for information or to challenge my statements. The length of my talk page and the length of some of my answers indicates this. (I'm going to copy the OA section there, as it is of general interest). DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I appreciate your assistance. 8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)