Movieboffin

Your message at Requests for feedback

	Hello Movieboffin. Replies have been posted to your message at Requests for feedback. Please acknowledge the feedback and ask for additional assistance if you need it. If you do not respond to the feedback, your message and the replies thereto will be archived in a few days. Thank you! Ma®©usBritish [talk] 12:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
	You can remove this notice at any time - click on this section's [edit] link and remove the section.

Thanks so much for this constructive advice Marcus, I'm very grateful to you, also that you did it so quickly. I only mentioned her parental background by way of adding biographical detail, not the main reason for creating the page because, as you said, it would not be noteworthy and would almost definitely be queued for deletion on that basis alone. I am searching for the links to her articles on feminism, juvenile justice and also the campaigning stuff on learning difficulties. I have read things in the past but need to find online links. I shall look at the links you provided and continue working on it as a draft in the meantime. When I've improved on it, I'll put it forward for feedback again if that's ok? IS it acceptable to link to books which are not actually online - for example a book title (publisher link)? Thank you so much. Movieboffin (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've only been doing RFFs for a few days, but bear in mind feedback is supposed to be "advice" not for anyone to lay down rules or expect anything of you - shared experience is helpful in creating articles. I'm producing a kind of "Help" page on the different types of reviews/feedback which you might find helpful in writing your article and making a stronger case for the person you're writing about. This isn't finished yet, but you might find section 3 useful: User:MarcusBritish/Feedback advice#Requests for feedback.

To reply to an RFF, go into the date you made the RFF, then the [edit] options will show down the right.

Yes, books are best, because they are "permanent", websites come and go. See {{cite book}} on referencing books.

Regards, Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 13:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. I'll read Section three, it sounds like a great idea to create a page such as yours. If I can link to hard copy books, that makes things much easier. Thanks again. Movieboffin (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Try to avoid citing sources written by her (e.g. her own website) because it present a Conflict of Interest WP:COI - try to find independent and reliable sources WP:RS, to backup anything and everything you say about her. Biogs have to be very carefully written. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 13:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was uncomfortable with using her own links too, quite apart from the Wiki reg's but I was trying to experiment with properly formatting links, refs, citations etc. I will definitely clean them up with other sources. Thank you. Movieboffin (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully I am gradually improving upon it. I still need to complete a couple of the ref's (before anyone points out that they link to nothing - only two of the books which are quite old and I'm still searching for publisher links). But, hopefully, by the time I've finished, it will be a worthy article. Thanks. Movieboffin (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well there are a few references you will need to reconsider and remove, per WP:RS - anything like Facebook, Twitter or Myspace, and other Wikipages (referenced as "sources", not wikilinks) cannot be used - they are not "reliable sources" in themselves. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 15:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There is only one Facebook link, no Twitter or MySpace links. I'll remove the FB one, didn't realize it was a problem, sorry. I didn't realize you couldn't link to Wiki pages for biographies of well-known people such as her father, George Harrison, or a TV station, or place but no matter, I can easily replace them with external links. All the others are independent links, apart from her website which I will remove before posting the actual article. Thanks so much. Movieboffin (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, thanks so much for this Marcus, it really is so helpful. I don't want to look a complete idiot if I actually post it to the real Wikipedia pages. Not on my first article anyway! I really do appreciate the trouble you're taking. I am beginning to realize that it's quite a lot of hard work to get these articles in any kind of shape to be posted! Movieboffin (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't apologise, please.. I'm just stating what is in the guidelines, not rebuking anyone. You CAN link to other articles, but not as references - i.e. Wiki is not considered a "reliable source" because it is based on user-contributions which may be inaccurate. You can, however, create a level 2 == See also == section, and put links in that - they are neither references nor wikilinks, just related articles. So you'd end up with, for example:

See also

• George Harrison
• The Beatles

Yes, articles take a long, long time - I've started a few, mostly stubs, but have done one in-depth article which has been peer reviewed, B-class review, A-class review, and then a GA review - it is now A/GA, but that took about 2 months, where I had expected a week or two. In those few months I learned a LOT from using wiki. You will too, no doubt. Hard work, but enjoyable once you know the way it all operates. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 15:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I quite like the idea of having a 'see also' section, I may change it. I'm going a little boss-eyed at the moment so think I'll leave it alone for a while! It IS enjoyable, I agree, if a little frustrating at times when the red 'code errors' come up! I wanted to try to write one because I've been so frustrated reading some of the truly awful articles on here, poorly researched and seemingly there for no reason at all, no references, no links other than personal ones, and I always wonder how they get them through. But possibly they don't submit them for review and no one notices them! Thanks again, you really have been incredibly helpful to me. Movieboffin (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

They get through, because they don't get read for a long while - but you can guarantee that a lot of them eventually end up in the Articles for Deletion nomination lists, with no excuses for being poorly written, referenced or unworthy of an article. Creating an article is only mildy frustrating compared with quality reviews - but the best way to get the best possible article is to face peers, those with shared knowledge and try to throw in the best information the world can offer you. It feels good to get an article promoted, believe me - rewards the hard work. It's just a matter of picking up a bit each day until it becomes second nature. At the moment you're going back through an article to add-in Wiki requirements. Once you reach a second or third article you'll be popping in required stuff as you go along, and it will be a much faster, and smoother process. Give yourself a chance with the first, don't rush, even edit a few articles here and there to get used to other tags and templates - the more you pick up the more confident you will become, after a little trial and error. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 16:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being so encouraging. I'm in no particular rush to post it over to the pages, I'm happy enough to plod along trying to get it right first and, added to that, I'm learning a great deal as I go along. I would like to try editing when I see something in need of it and hopefully I will as time goes on. But, in my experience, if something's worth doing, it's worth doing properly as you've shown with your article you mentioned above. Thank you. Movieboffin (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is how my first detailed article looks now Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, compared with how it appeared when I first moved it from sandbox: First Revision. I got a lot of feedback and support from reviews, but never imagined it would get this far. So don't try to imagine an "end point" to an article when you start it, more a "happy for now" point - because there's always a chance someone can help you push it a step further, until you do reach a point where you are satisfied and totally astonished by the result of weeks, or months, effort. I'm working on my 2nd detailed article now, and from the experience of my first know it will push through reviews with a lot more ease and less objections and challenged to the content.. therefore less frustrating. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 16:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)