User talk:Sarahtodoroff

Speedy deletion nomination of NearSourcing
Hello Sarahtodoroff,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged NearSourcing for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. LS1979 (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Note
Wikipedia does not allow advertising or promotion. It also does not allow things that LOOK like advertising or promotion. I'm afraid that your article looked very much like what we call artspam (WP:ARTSPAM) where an apparent article is a lead up to an external link that is the whole point of the exercise. Peridon (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks. I rewrote the article and submitted it for peer review. I took out all of the promotional material and left the important information about the concept of Nearsourcing. Sarahtodoroff (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but... The questions have to go. Especially anything like "Is Nearsourcing Right for Your Company?". That's straight PR stuff. Look at other articles to find out how an encyclopaedia is written. The third person is used, and first and second person (outside relevant quotes) are usually taken to be advertising or promotion. All in all, it still comes across to me as promoting near sourcing even if not the company with the very similar name. We don't promote anything - and we don't allow unsourced negative material or attacks either. Genuinely notable (that is, relevant and sourced in reliable independent sources) negative stuff can be part of an article - as quite a few promoters of persons and organisations have found to their great dismay. Please read WP:RS - I'm not happy about some of your references. I'll ask a friend of mine to have a look - . She's good at this sort of thing. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thank you so much. This is my first time writing anything for Wikipedia. I will re-write what I need to. I don't want it to be promotional, I want it to be informational. Any comments and suggestions are helpful. Sarahtodoroff (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping, Peridon. Is this draft the article we are talking about? Even before I look at the references I see several problems with it. First is the question format, that Peridon flagged above; that's got to go. Also the capitalization of Nearsourcing, as if it is a trademarked name that is being promoted, instead of some kind of generic business concept. OK, now that I have dodged past several red flags that smack of promotion, I will take a look and see if there is an article to be written here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. The answer is YES, there is a article to be written here, and furthermore it is one that Wikipedia needs. It would be a parallel to the articles on Outsourcing and Insourcing, which you should look at to see how this article should be formatted. The correct spelling seems to be near-sourcing - with a hyphen, and not capitalized - based on the sources quoted in the article. See what you can do to change this into an encyclopedic format like the other articles I mentioned, and I'll take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have taken out the questions, which you are right, is very promotional. I changed word to near-sourcing, though I can't figure out how to change the title of the article :( I have also linked to Outsourcing and Insourcing in the overview section as comparisons. Can you please look over again and let me know what you think? Thanks! Sarahtodoroff (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, we're getting closer. The "Things to consider" section should be deleted; it violates WP:NOTHOWTO. We don't directly address the reader with advice, ever; that's not what encyclopedias do. The last paragraph - detailing the kinds of things that can be near-sourced - should not be a whole section, but the information could be added in sentence form to one of the earlier sections.
 * Minor style points: don't capitalize every word in the section headings, as if they were a title. Only the first word should be capitalized. And don't have small one-sentence paragraphs; combine them into a proper paragraph.
 * About the references: right now they are bare URLs. To make them into properly cited references, you can use the toolbar at the top of the edit window. Click on "cite", then choose the appropriate type of reference - web, news, etc. - and fill in as many of the blanks as you can. When you have done that, put the cursor at the point in the article where the reference should be cited, and click "Add citation". That's important! If you don't click "add citation" before you save the page, it won't get added and you'll have to do it all again. Ask me if you have trouble with this.
 * The lead paragraph could be clearer; would you mind if I did a little rewriting there for style and clarity? I do think we have a Wikipedia article here, with a little more work. Don't worry about the title, I can fix that when I move it to mainspace. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to help me with this. I will work on your suggestions and please, if you would like to rewrite things, I am all for it! Also, I just tried to add citations, and I couldn't figure it out. I found the citation button on the toolbar, but I was not able to find the "Add Citation" button. Sarahtodoroff (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the long delay, Sarah, I've been on vacation. On the toolbar, there is a button "cite". If you click it, it should give you some choices: web, news, journal, etc. Click on one of those and it will give you blanks to fill in: the essential ones are url, title, and "newspaper" or "work" (which means the name of the web page). If you have additional information like publication date you can add it. Underneath the area to fill in the blanks there should be two buttons, "add citation" and "preview citation". If you put your cursor at the point in the article where you want it to go, and then click "add citation", it should fill it in. At least that is how my toolbar works, if we are using different versions of Wikipedia it might be different. There are multiple ways to add references, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --MelanieN (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, hope your vacation was great! I have added the citations correctly. Can you please double check everything, make any necessary changes (or let me know what needs to be done) and then approve? Thanks!Sarahtodoroff (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Great job on the reference citations! I would like to do a few tweaks to the article before launching it into mainspace. But I am traveling and my internet access is sporadic, so it will take me a few days. I will let you know when I have finished, and if you are good with what I have done, I will move the article to the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ! I will keep checking back for updates. I really appreciate all your help! Sarahtodoroff (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I checked back to see how you were getting on with the article. With your permission I would like to make some edits to the draft article which would help it get accepted. Would that be OK? LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please! I would really appreciate it! Thanks!! Sarahtodoroff (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have done the "tweaks" I intended. I do wish the article had more references. Can you find any more - to actual published sources like newspapers or trade journals? --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Actually, in a Google search I found quite a few. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, hi . I've made a few tweaks to the article to iron a little more of the jargon, as well as a stray contraction. Melanie made a big difference, but I think this may be a goer. Thank you, Melanie, for sorting this article out. LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's always fun to help a new user succeed. I went ahead and moved it to mainspace. But don't stop improving it, Sarah; I would still like to see a few more references. --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help  and  !! I will keep improving it! Sarahtodoroff (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)