User talk:Julieskim0202

Hi, I just need some help making this page suitable for Wikipedia. Any advise is welcome, but please note that this is a new page and I am a very new user. Thank you! Julieskim0202 (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I assume you're referring to the article SuperFabric. Let me start off by noting that the subject may not meet the general notability guideline. To ensure a quality encyclopedia, all articles are subject to standards that ensure the subject is worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. To start, I think you should try to find significant coverage about the subject in an independent, reliable source such as a news article. Use these sources to cite statements in your article to justify its notability and accuracy. This will go a long way to ensuring your article meets Wikipedia's standards. Happy editing! --Shirik (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried including some outside references. These are mainly news mentions or PR releases. Do I just need more in number? Thanks. Julieskim0202 (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, you don't need the admin help template for this. Yes, you want more sources that cover the subject in detail, not just mentions. Also, PR releases are not the best of sources because they are released by the company itself and not an outside group.  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I believe these are news articles from other sources. Note: Specialty Fabrics Review is a magazine for the textile industry... Smart Textiles and Nanotechnology released an article on the merging of two products... and the Extreme Textiles article is from the Smithsonian's Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum's extreme textiles books.

Can you please be more clear why these are not good sources? I can find more references, but I just want to understand what is considered a "reliable" source on Wikipedia?

Thanks!!Julieskim0202 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a detailed page at WP:RS. The only source I have a real issue with is the blog. Blogs, social networks, etc are not reliable sources.  fetch  comms  ☛ 22:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please look, again, at the changes I've made according to the above advice? Thank you! Julieskim0202 (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Julieskim0202. Fetchcomms isn't online at the moment, but I can help you. Looking over the references, they seem to be in good order. The only thing that I can recommend is find more; you can never have too many sources. While searching for more sources, watch for sources that you could expand the article with. I will go ahead and assess the article as start class. Ks0stm  If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 14:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming that my page will be a work-in-progress, then? Since anyone can "challenge" this page, I will have to be attentive and always checking back on My Talk and Discussions pages? Julieskim0202 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes...and I would suggest adding the page to your watchlist, which can be found at Special:Watchlist. All articles are a work in progress :-) Ks0stm  If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Every article on Wikipedia is a work in progress, so “your” article too. Also, while you are currently the sole author of that article, it's not yours, but yes, if you want to make sure that the article is in a good shape, you have to watch it. Svick (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Thedarxide (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Super Fabric
Hi. I'm going to respect your newpage tag, but if it wasn't there I'd be applying a speedy deletion template as blatant advertising. The article needs a lot of cleaning up to be considered encyclopedic. Thedarxide (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Thedarxide (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Thedarxide (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphan
My page has been "tagged" as an orphan. I thought I linked quite a few related articles, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding? Is this related to adding a "See Also" section? Please help! Thanks much. Julieskim0202 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If an article is marked as orphan, it means that few articles link to it. So, if you want to fix that, you should add links pointing to the article you edited to other relevant articles. Svick (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Where would you recommend I put links to my article on another page? Should it be an anchor link text? Or a hyper link below? What location or style does Wikipedia "like" best? Thanks! Julieskim0202 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The best way is to have links as part of the text of the article. The other option is to put them into the section “See also” of related articles. I searched for the term “SuperFabric” on Wikipedia, and only the article SuperFabric itself contains it, so the “See also” option would probably be easier. Svick (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My page was tagged as an orphan page, so I went to some other related articles and added links to my page. Can someone please re-evaluate my article now and tell me how I'm doing? Thanks! Julieskim0202 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Done; for future reference, if you fix such a thing yourself, feel free to remove the tag - which in this case was the .   Chzz  ►  21:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

Thank you very much. Will my inward links be sufficient enough? Or is it possible for this to get re-tagged as an orphan? I noticed the original orphan tag says "has few or no" links... how many is enough? And does the quality of the other articles affect the quality of my article? Julieskim0202 (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)