Talk:White House Historical Association

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

COI edit requests
Hi! The WHHA is a client of mine, and I've drafted an updated version of this article in my sandbox. Typically I would created a marked up version of this mockup with all the changes from the current article annotated, but in this case I can't because it's a complete rewrite of the existing article. Changes include:
 * Adding an infobox
 * Adding sources and citations throughout
 * Organizing into sections
 * Fleshing out history and scope of current activities based on available sources
 * Rewriting in accordance with sources and with attention to avoiding plagiarism

Sorry this one's a bit tougher to review, but I think it's a big improvement! Looking forward to your feedback. Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply 8-FEB-2020
Regards, Spintendo  16:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For future reference, a diff of the requested changes may be found here.
 * Text from the proposal was found to be insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. Needless to say, text which is proposed to be added to an article needs to be written using an editor's own words and phrases.

Edit request
Hi, and thank you for flagging that – when I updated the sources and made sure the wording aligned I lost track of checking for additional copyvio. Those sentences are updated now and I'm reopening the request. Here's a link to an updated diff. Thanks again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply 27-FEB-2020
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request. Spintendo 09:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

in looking at a few of the claims in the unreviewed section, I would see running into problems where a source makes one claim regarding the White House Endowment Fund and the proposed text uses that source to make a claim about the Historical Association, a circumstance which happens more than once in that section. I understand that one administers the other, but the closenes of the two as implied in this edit request lends weight to the argument that the two articles ought to be merged. As it stands, both articles are fairly weak with references when in their separate states, even with an un-altered proposal factored in (the use of the Melania article as reference for claims it does not make is one example of this; the articles on the Endowment Fund used to reference claims about the Association is another.) I believe that they might both be strengthened if they were merged into one article. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this when you get a chance. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo  16:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

revised edit requests
Hi! Again, COI editor representing the WHHA here. I've incorporated 's feedback above and revised my proposed updated draft of this article. Here's a link to a current diff. Updates include: Thanks so much for any time/feedback. Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding an infobox
 * Adding sources and citations throughout
 * Organizing into sections
 * Fleshing out history and scope of current activities based on available sources


 * , please replace the sources from the Daily Mail and Newsweek. Per WP:RSPSOURCES, the Daily Mail has been deprecated and usage generally prohibited; Newsweek after 2013 is not considered generally reliable.
 * Sdrqaz (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for reviewing! I've now replaced both those sources in the draft – here's an updated diff. Please let me know if you have any other feedback. Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, . I am now happy to fulfil that edit request. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)