User talk:Keakea123

Chris Shaw
Answering your question on the reference desk: I recommend against making the article public at the moment. It has several issues, which I will outline below:
 * 1) It is unclear what articles, books and websites you used as sources. If you feel Footnotes is too complicated, then make a numbered list under the header Sources and spread numbers throughout the article to indicate where what information came from. This is the single most important thing. (See our verifiability policy)
 * 2) The first sentence of the article should clearly describe the article topic in this case Chris Shaw. Once you moved the categories to the bottom of the article, it is unclear what he was known for. The first sentence should read something like: "Chris Shaw (born as Roger Wyatt on ....) is an American drag queen and female impersonator."
 * 3) Take a look at articles in the categories WP:GA and WP:FA. Well-written articles have subsections and don't have as much bold text as you used. I recommend using subsections for career, personal life and any award he's won. Names of works of fiction are italicized instead of bolded.
 * 4) Press articles not used as a source can be in a further reading section, but all of them need more detailed information: author and date (or at least year) of publication so readers will be able to look them up.
 * 5) The sections about the stars performed with, or the theaters and nightclubs he performed at do nothing to establish his importance. Unless you can put it in prose and work it into the text, I recommend you remove them.

I hope these recommendations where helpful. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any more questions and let me know when you've made the changes. When you're done, you can bring the article live by moving it from your userspace to the appropriate article title (assuming no article exists about Chris Shaw, otherwise you'd have to use a title like Chris Shaw (drag performer) -- Mgm|(talk) 08:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also please read WP:Spam - at the moment the tone of the draft is excessively promotional and fansiteish, the tone is not encyclopedic and it does not maintain a neutral point of view. – ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)