User talk:RonDiG

Welcome!
Hello, RonDiG, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Robert Graham (fashion brand). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits at Robert Graham (fashion brand)
Hi there and thanks for working to improve Wikipedia. I'm writing to let you know that I've reverted your edits to the Robert Graham article. I appreciate the efforts, but there are two issues with the replaced text. First is that the text you added was too promotional in tone. For example "probably best described as 'American Eclectic,'", "Launched on the premise of introducing bold color and sophisticated prints and patterns to an otherwise uninspired fashion market", "Stock inspired a global movement in offering men and women the opportunity to make a more individualized statement in the way they dress"... It kind of sounds like it came directly from their website. Second is that you removed text that cited 5-6 sources and didn't add any. Wikipedia requires that content be written in as objective a way as possible, reporting only what is said about a subject in reliable secondary sources. So something like "otherwise uninspired fashion market" reads as the voice of Wikipedia saying "the fashion market was uninspired" which is an incredibly subjective, value-laden statement that leads the text to read as promotional copy whereas a drier statement like "It is known for its use of complicated and colorful fabric patterns.." accompanied by a couple sources that say as much is more in line with Wikipedia standards.

I do appreciate working on the article, though, and hope you will do so again in the future. What I find to be the best way to improve an article like this, which is already relatively neutral and which already contains citations, would be to identify reliable sources and use that material where appropriate. Please let me know if you have questions, etc. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)