User talk:Margee Kerr

Review of the User:Margee Kerr/The ScareHouse
Good start. Comments:
 * I fixed and formatted the references using some automated tools, you may want to review the newly formatted refs to see if the bot got all the things (like author names) correctly.
 * There are unreferenced paragraphs in the article. While I prefer to ask for all sentences to be cited, it is enough to reference all paragraphs to avoid having tags like refimprove on the article.
 * Your internal links were formatted incorrectly; you were using the external link formatting for them. I've fixed the first three. See my fixes here, read Linking for a how-to (long story short, use link or pipe instead of [url name] ). You should add more blue links, there is a number of linkable terms and concepts not linked yet. Those need to be added or the article will be tagged with wikify. See WP:BTW.
 * The article needs WP:CATEGORIES to be added. I've added some for you, you may want to add more if you think I missed something, although those should cover the basics (object type and its geospacial location). If you know the GPS coordinates, I'd suggest adding those to the article, so the Wikipedia article would appear on the Google Maps Wikipedia layer. See Template:Coord for more info.
 * The article begs for some pictures.
 * If you address all of those, I recommend you submit your article for a WP:DYK so that your work and topic is featured on Wikipedia's Main Page, vastly increasing its visibility (free advert!). If you need, I can help with the nomination. Please note that if more than 5 days lapse between the article being moved to main space and the DYK nomination, the nomination will be invalid, so you may want to improve the article in your sandbox and move it and nom it only when ready.
 * As always, just ask me questions if needed! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Scarehouse
I did the new article review for The ScareHouse. I tagged it as an orphan, but on the other hand I added from Google Maps Satellite view. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The WP:ORPHAN issue (lack of links to) is responsible, I think, for the article's still poor visibility on Google. I strongly suggest adding more links to scarehouse in the other article(s) throughout Wikipedia. On a related note, more photos, included in various Wikipedia articles, and linking to the article, would help too (but they'd have to be less promotional than the logo-heavy stuff currently in the article, already on the border of being too promotional for an encyclopedia). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The ScareHouse
Margee, there are some issues that have needed to be addressed about your ScareHouse nomination for DYK, some of which have already been mentioned here on your talk page about the article itself. We'd very much like for the nomination to be approved, but it's been two weeks since you did any editing at all on Wikipedia, and that was to assure us, on the nomination's talk page, of work you were going to do to the article yet has not been done. (It's four weeks since your edit prior to that one.)

If we don't hear anything from you in the next few days, we're going to have to assume you've abandoned the nomination, and close it with regret. I hope you see this before then and check in at the nomination template: absent some new sourcing, a new hook will be needed, and Piotrus hasn't been able to create a good one. Thanks for your submission of this article, and I hope you are well. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'll address this in the next two days, I've just been incredibly busy but I know this is important. My apologies for the lack of attention.

DYK for The ScareHouse
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Scarehouse GA review
Hi Margee

I have reviewed The Scarehouse and, unfortunately, I have had to fail the nomination as there is a very large issue with plagiarsm in the history section. You can read my review here. I have blue linked some useful pages which I think will help you with the rewrite needed to progress the article. Feel free to message me if you have questions relating to the review. Good luck with the article. Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Margee. Thanks for messaging me about the review. As you are the author of the work, and as Wikipedia is the original work, the issue is one of referencing, rather than one of plagiarism. If the work is from on offline source, simply cite the offline source. It would be helpful, I think, if the official ScareHouse webpage made reference to the wiki page being the original (or indeed any reference to the wiki-page at all) as an uninvolved reviewer like myself is very unlikely to know (or even guess) that the article editor is a staff member of the place being reviewed and that the official website of the attraction has simply copied, verbatim, the material added to wikipedia by that staff member. Additionally, I do not think that all of the history information should be removed; I agree that it is interesting and it sounds like a very nice building; but to pass a GA review the article must remain focused (see here at criteria 3.b) and not go into unnecessary detail as I felt the original section did. Once you have worked through the comments in the review, please feel free to nominate the article again for review. Good luck! Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If TS page has copied text from Wikipedia, they can certainly do so, but they are legally required to note the source and that all material copied is under a free license. By not doing so, TS is "stealing" from Wikipedia, and as Meetthefeebles noted above, can generate confusion which can lead to the text on Wikipedia being deleted as a potential copyvio. See: Reusing Wikipedia content.
 * Regarding history of the building, I'd consider splitting it off to a subpage, rather than removing it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)