User talk:Steinway1701/I Am Equal (photo documentary)

Contested deletion

 * This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...this is a legitimate project that I discovered first online from Chelsea Handler's Facebook and website page. Intrigued by the campaign, I started to research it by coming to Wikipedia and found nothing. I expanded my research and quickly gathered no less than 38 news stories about the project and proceeded to do something I've never done before, write a Wikipedia article. Being new to this process, I am sure that I have made many novice mistakes in creating, editing, naming, referencing, and citing this article, but that does not make the topic any less noteworthy for Wikipedia and I don't agree with the summary decision to delete the article completely from the site. Administrators have already been all over this article to edit and alter the content so it is more in alignment with the standards of the site. The intention of the article was not to promote the project but rather to give reference and background to the campaign. My research took me to news articles, press releases, and websites that dissected the campaign and I even called the offices directly to ask further questions about the process, outcome, and expectations of the campaign so as to make a complete representation here on Wikipedia. I acknowledge that my efforts may have been "over kill" but I wanted to make sure that I was presenting an article that was worthy of the site. Perhaps other authors don't go to such lengths to create new content for the site, and that is my mistake as a newbie here. I though I was following the instructions of the "Orphan" template at the top of the page by going to other articles in wikipedia (individual participants referenced in the main article) and adding a small paragraph and link to the page. Clearly I misunderstood what that template was telling me to do. I was not trying to promote or SPAM the article, I was just doing what I thought I was being told to do. I also attempted to add images from the project gallery to support the article (because I thought that was what you do when you make a wikipedia article) but other admins were quick to remove the non-Free images. I was under the impression that a comprehensive article would also include the images referred to in the context, but apparently that is not the case. All that being said, I would hate to think that my novice mistakes and poor understanding of the process and procedures of Wikipedia would lead to the deletion of an article about a culturally significant project that is noteworthy (and has a lot of supporting media coverage). As I understand this site to be community maintained, and as evidenced by the feverish work of the admins, this article deserves to be adjusted and massaged by more competent editors to bring it into compliance with the standards of the site; NOT to be deleted. --Steinway1701 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've written you a message about this issue here. It covers the applicable policies/guidelines regarding the issues with this article.  Please go check it out.  I think we can work something out.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 18:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To the patrolling admin, I'm suggesting to the author that we userfy this article so that it can be worked on an moved back to mainspace when its issues have been addressed.  Ol Yeller Talktome 18:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Improvements
We can use this section to list things that will need improvement. For now, I'll tag the article with template improvement messages. We can go over each one later when I have a little more time.  Ol Yeller Talktome 20:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Stein. Apparently I can't add improvement templates to userspace so I'll try and list issues here.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 19:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 Ol Yeller Talktome 19:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weasel words - For instance, the opening section states that, the project "is an ambitious project". The "ambitious" part is what's known as a weasel word.  For it to be included, there would need to be evidence that the project really is considered ambitious by reliable sources compared to other similar projects.  It's really unlikely that it will be able to be proven and it's really just much easier to remove the word all together.  The easiest way to address this issue for the whole article and whenever you see an opinion word (great, ambitious, fun, creative, etc.), ask who the opinion belongs to.  If it's anyone other than the people who wrote the reference used to back up the information, it should be removed.  This is also the easiest way to make the article seem less spammy.
 * Ol Yeller, Good point on the use of the word ambitious, but I included it because that sentence was in at least 2 of the articles I pulled for this piece. I can find the direct quote and use one of those in-line links directly to the article, or re-phrase it all together. I'm not the best judge of what makes a photo project ambitious so I just trusted the wording from the source. I'll take a closer look.
 * Steinway Schriftzug.jpg Steinway 1701  Talk  &#124; 23:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Content - This part is a little trickier as it's all a matter of opinion. There's a whole lot of content in the article.  This isn't a bad thing but it may detract from the article.  For instance, multiple paragraphs for each year's tour is probably overkill.  Also, the charts of could be cut down or removed but that's just my opinion.  The easiest way to address this is to look at the paragraphs that don't have any references and decide if they're needed.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 19:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Content is tricky because I'm trying to enter what would be relevant to someone who has never heard of the project as well as someone who is familiar with it (maybe even a participant) and include details that they may be interested in. I'm not totally convinced that a blow-by-blow run through of the tour stops for each year is universally important, but I assume, if the project becomes as big as it seems to be headed, someone (7 years down the road) will find it interesting to have some more specifics on the event stops. Perhaps if I limited to the details to only include the significant stops that celebrities, groups, or corporations took part?
 * Steinway Schriftzug.jpg Steinway 1701  Talk  &#124; 23:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * External links - The article has lots of external links. WP's policy on external links states that external links, "should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article."  Generally this means that there should be no external links in the body of the article and that they should be kept in the infobox for the official website and in the External Links section.  Also found in WP:EL is a list of types of links to avoid.  Links to websites like Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc. shouldn't be included.  It's usually argued that they're hard to prove as official and usually mirror whatever content is found on the official website.  Unless the FB or Twitter page is really unique and notable, they're generally not included.  The same goes for blogs.  The list is really long (seems even bigger than when I read it a few months ago) but in general, the only external links that should be on the page at all should be to the official website and that's it.  Excessive external links are a huge red flag to editors that the article may be spammy.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 19:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The external links are hold overs from some previous edit and an admin that put them down there. I don't fully understand it, but I get what you're saying about having a crazy amount of links going to the website. I wonder what is your opinion about links that further support the assertions from the articles and source materials about the different issues and causes that are represented in the project. At least one "PhotoStory" exists for all of these subjects mentioned and they are out in the public site for all to see. Is it appropriate to include them as supportive to the claim? While many news articles list the unique causes, none really get into depth about the participants...so I thought it might be a good idea to link to the participants words directly. What is your opinion on that? (example: PhotoStory: Mikinly C. (incest rape)
 * Steinway Schriftzug.jpg Steinway 1701  Talk  &#124; 23:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it that for right now. I'll be back around a bit later to see how thing are going and make a few edits.  Let me know if you have any questions.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 19:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note
Stein, I'd just like to say that as I read more through this article, it's pretty impressive for a new user. Your formatting and thuroughness show the marks of someone with much more experience. Your dedication definitely shows. I hope that after we fix this article up, you go on to make many more articles.  Ol Yeller Talktome 19:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ol Yeller , I use Wikipedia and I appreciate the formatting and consistence of the site, so I wanted to make sure I did it right from the start (though I didn't quite do it). I want to make my contributions fully aligned with the style. I've been doing my best to learn the details about infoboxes, images, sections, paragraphs, citations, etc...but there is a lot to learn. It means a lot that you feel I'm not a totally lost cause...LOL
 * RE: Citations...I have removed all the original citations from the article and am now systematically entering them again from scratch to make sure that all the elements are properly notated. When I started, I thought I could only use a citation ONCE in an article, so as a result, I ended up deleting a lot of sources that contained duplicate content. During one (of the many) admin conversations about the article, images, and content, someone said I was supposed to cite the same article multiple time..."that's the whole point." So, I'm going back through and adding the citations again, but at times it seems crazy to have 6+ citations attached to a single word or sentence. What is your opinion on this?
 * Steinway1701 (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ready to Publish?
If you're still keeping an eye on this article, Ol Yeller , I'd love to have you take a look and let me know if this article is ready to publish. I have worked on it and tried to get it edited down to the main points of interest for the project. Although I got distracted for a few months, I still think this entry should be available on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate your notes on this.  Steinway 1701  Talk  &#124; 08:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)