User talk:BMannon

Malformed wikilinks at Wiki Ed/Old Dominion University/WMNST 5 (Spring 2018)
Hey Bethany, just a heads up, some of the links on your course page are malformed due to commas inside the wikilink; I think folks are clicking those links and ending up at the wrong place.. I fixed a couple pages in the wrong place (from and ) but I wanted to let you know so you can fix them at the wikiedu site. Thanks! ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 10:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

WMNST articles
Hi BMannon (and ping & ).

A significant number of the articles produced through WMNST 5 (Spring 2018) and WMNST 2 (Spring 2018) have either been deleted or are at risk of deletion (and many probably should be deleted or at most be merged/redirected). This is unfortunate for everyone involved. You may already be an experienced editor under another account, but if not, the following thoughts may be useful for future courses: ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Editors from WP:WikiProject Women in Red (and/or other wikiprojects including WP:WikiProject Women) may be able to assist with topic selection, mentoring, etc
 * Please consider editing further. Wikipedia is its own ecosystem with a large number of overlapping and sometimes contradictory policies, guidelines, and practices. If you're assigning students to edit and peer review without an internalised understanding of requirements, there is likely to be a lot more mistargetted effort. Peer review is only as strong as peers' understanding of various requirements.
 * Please review Articles for deletion nominations (both those relating to the articles produced by your classes as well as a broader range of AFDs) so as to understand the range of how these policies/guidelines are/should be applied with respect to biographies (and especially living people).
 * "Notability" has specific meaning within Wikipedia discussions. Many people who have some level of real world notability (including mayors of towns, journalists of major news organisations, heads of companies, ...) nonetheless are not considered to meet general or subject-specific notability requirements for an individual article. Some may, however, have sufficient noteworthiness for redirection to and incorporation within a broader article.
 * Articles need to be verifiable using reliable secondary sources that are independent of each other. A single source does not clearly show that someone is notable. Nor does most blog content or similar non-edited unreferenced material. Nor do press releases or similar. Nor do primary sources such as patents. If the sourcing isn't available to demonstrate that an article subject meets notability requirements, then the editor is building on sand, and little can be done to save the article (other than finding reliable sources). Conversely, if the sourcing and claims are strong enough, then even a very minimal article stub is likely to survive.
 * Where an article subject is (for instance) an inventor of a single invention or (co-)founder of a single company, and that invention or company is of limited notability but still sufficient for an article or part of an article, and the person has no other significant claims for notability, then the person should at most be redirected to the invention/company (as WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E) with limited biographical coverage provided (WP:COATRACK). If notability for the invention or company cannot be established, then the person is almost certainly non-notable unless other claims for notability can be established.
 * Articles must be written as neutrally as possible. Articles should state what others say about the subject/topic (as sourced to expert / reliable sources). They should not take positions from the perspective of the encyclopedia, and nor should original research or synthesis be performed.