Talk:PEERtrainer

Hi,

I have editted this page to take out any remarks that may have been seen as advertisements. I appologize for the style in which I chose to initially write the document. PEERtraner is a website devoted to helping people lead healthier lives, through support from people with similar fitness and health goals. The support system causes people to be more accountable to themselves and the users encourage each other to stop unhealthy habits. The online support is user-based and user-run.

Please let me know if there is still anything that is viewed in such a way. Thanks for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crhwang (talk • contribs) 14:12, 12 June 2007

Warning: This article lacks WP:A to establish WP:N
I recently encountered this article while performing either New Page Patrol, Recent changes patrol, or Counter-Vandalism Unit activities, and in my opinion as a Wikipedia editor, it either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the notability criteria for, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it reads like blatant Vanispmcruftisment.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of Notability … without them, an article is just original research, which is prohibited by official policy.

Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, articles with absolutely no sources (or only links to unreliable ones like MySpace, Google, and Amazon.com) raises a flag for some editors that such attributable sources may not, in fact, exist.

The point is that I plan to tag this article with either a  that explains my reasons why I believe that it should be deleted, or else a  tag for speedy deletion (CSD A7).

I have created this initial entry on the article's Discussion page in the hope that Administrators and other editors, including the author,, will also comment on their opinions and actions here ... please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.
 * Other experienced editors: Please see the Draft protocol to minimize friction from speedy deletions, and try to keep the speedy deletion process from occurring Too Quickly, like when a WikiNewbie creates a "work in progress" stub instead of using their own sandbox first. The important thing to remember about this new paradigm is


 * "Flag it, then tag it, THEN frag it!"


 * In other words, announce your intention to tag (flag the author and Discussion pages first), and have a "time-out" before proceeding with the tag ... and if the tag is removed, either proceed to the next step in the protocol, or else MOVE ON.


 * Administrators: If you do speedy delete this article, then in the spirit of WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, consider leaving a note on the Talk page for this article's author, ... explain that you concur with the reasons for the speedy deletion, and have exercised your authority as one of the Administrators to delete it ... this should shorten the time it takes for the author to appeal for restoration of the article because it was just an unfinished "work in progress," or they neglected to tag it as a stub article.


 * It would certainly require a little extra time and effort for you, but it may keep Some Other Editor from being blocked for reverting the deletion of tags after an article has been recreated, all because there was no paper trail ... after all, I took the time to start a message thread about this article on their Talk page, so all you have to do is append your own "stencil" message ... this is for that Very Small percentage of cases where a mistake has been made by being Too Hasty in our collective judgment of this article's unworthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia as presented for the first time. :-)

I think we can all agree that Haste is the Dark Side of the Speedy Deletion process, and these draft protocols are designed to "soften the blows" of the "iron fist in the velvet glove" ... for all of the parties involved. —72.75.70.147 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent cleanups
I have made beau coup changes to the Media Coverage section of this article, and felt that they should be elaborated upon here for the education of the author.


 * 1) Wikilinks need only be used once, on the first mention of the topic ... multiple links to things like NBC and People were just redundant, so I eliminated all duplicated links except for the first mention.
 * 2) The citation for The New York Times (note full title to avoid a redirect, and use of italics) was a link to a page that requires registration to view ... this violated External_links, so I placed it inside of a comment rather than deleting it ... if you can retrieve the article's name, date, page, author, etc., then you may restore it using a  template, which will automagically link the   to the , so that those who are registered at the site may view it, but others can at least go to the tombs at their local library and find it on microfiche.
 * 3) The footnote that was appended to TechNow! was in fact just a link to the TV affiliate's website, with no mention of PEERtrainer, so I linked the name of the program, eliminating the.
 * 4) The text implied that the subject had been featured on an NBC national broadcast ... I qualified it by identifying that it is, in fact, the San Francisco Bay Area affiliate that hosts the program.
 * 5) There was no need to mention (and link) ABC even once, except for vanity, so I deleted all instances.
 * 6) A quick search of Wikipedia revealed that "SEOmoz" is owned and operated by Rand Fishkin, so I linked it to his article.
 * 7) "People Magazine" (another redirect) was changed to "People" (note italics), and only linked the first time mentioned.
 * 8) I removed "'PEERtrainer has been written about by the New York Times, ABC News, and Forrester Research.'" because (a) two of them had already been mentioned, and (b) it was just more self-aggrandizing ... don't bother to mention Forrester Research unless there is a citation for the issue of a publication in which PEERtrainer is the subject of an article, unless it is "written about" in a trivial manner, in which case, don't mention it at all.
 * 9) The rest of the changes, including the removal of extraneous blank lines, are fairly obvious from the difference between versions.

That left only one of the three references that were in the article before my edit, so I reformatted it with a  template ... OTOH, an assertion like "featured on Good Morning America" needs a Reliable sources citation, so I tagged it.

That's about as much lipstick as I can put on this pig, but I'm willing to give the author a few days to find some Attribution before I tag it for deletion.

Happy Editing! &mdash;72.75.70.147 20:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes
Thanks for the recomendations recommendations and edits. The sources have been added where missing and style problems have been fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crhwang (talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 June 2007


 * First of all, Crhwang, please sign your posts! And the use of a spell checker would also be helpful in making your contributions, both to articles and talk pages ... that's one of the reasons why I use Mozilla Firefox instead of Internet Explorer; mistakes are underlined in red as I type them in the edit window.


 * Second, About.com and AboutUs.org are not reliable sources for citations (just as Wikipedia is not!) because there is no editorial oversight. i.e., "anybody can edit it," and therefore false information can remain undetected for months before being corrected or removed (such as an assertion that the subject of an article died of AIDS, which has happened here on several occasions), so I removed the two references that you added ... YouTube also has reliability problems, but I changed the external link to the PEERtraining site that had scans of the People cover into a reference.


 * Third, I changed the NYT and ABC News references from  to   and adding the authors ... I only used "xxx.com" for the publisher of the other references because the websites were not notable enough to mention by name, and to indicate that they were from websites, and not RS publications ... BTW, San Mateo Daily Journal has an article, so I linked it in the revised citation. (FYI, print publications should have their names in italics, but not website URLs.)


 * OTOH, even if this article passes the Notability (web) criterion of "subject of multiple non-trivial published works," it still is not very "encyclopedic." &mdash; 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am currently editing the article for more encyclopedic relevance. I will be editing in more content on the company rather than the product, and rewording the description. Thank you for taking the time to help edit this article, it is very much appreciated. 72.43.157.26 18:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)