User talk:Oishiisou/Draft of KAG article

My 2 bits

Hi there! Nice article!!!- the info is concise, to the point. I don't think the tone feels like a marketing push whatsoever. Suggestions?

• see if you can wikify it a bit more- see what terms link to existing pages
• I found wikimapia good, and linked to it on my site, although I am not sure if there's a better way to link than how I did it
• perhaps find a photo of the gallery space, some of the featured art?
• and, when I was doing up my article, I researched existing sites on the same type of topic and looked at what interesting headings they created, and it gave me a springboard for more content research

okay, that was 4 bits, but great job, looks fantastic!!--Ncsjfreed (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

I agree with the above statements - for more wikification, I found a few potential redirests (though they are outside of Wikipedia): Ann Kipling (http://www.douglasudellgallery.com/artistBio.asp?id=100), Jin-Me Yoon: (http://jin-meyoon.ca/) - I thought you could link "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_art_gallery" some how - unfortunately there isn't a canadian page. Japson88 (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts

I agree, nice article. Well written, syntax has a NPOV ... this is hard to do, and you have done a great job with that. Trying to find as may redirects as possible I think is a good thing. A photo of the building might be nice, but I am not sure if your photo would have licensing issues or just those of "others" not in the Commons archives. Great job!--4tiggy (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Hi Oishiisou, I think you have a great article! I agree that a few more internal links would be useful for the reader (NAG, Karsh, etc.). As far as photos go, I think you could easily shoot and upload one of your one exterior shots. Being that you are local the gallery probably wouldn't mind if you snapped a few inside shots (but probably not including the art ;).

I am wondering how the exhibition listings will be handled as they grow. Assuming the page remains stable for several years it could become quite long (depending on how busy the gallery is I suppose). Dazzpedian (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

More feedback

Great job on the article.I'm surprised the KAG doesn't have a page yet! I added a photo to the article - the credit is embedded on the file upload page - I hope that is sufficient... Stan mact (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador feedback

I thought I would touch bases and provide some feedback on the article draft.

1. I recommend rewriting the lead section. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic; establish context; explain why the subject is interesting, significant, and notable; and summarize the most important points. Currently, there is nothing in the article to present how or why the subject is significant and/or important. The lede section should be a summary of the rest of the article.
2. Remove the 2011 Exhibits section. Information like this is highly promotional and better left on the organization's website. Rather than focusing on future exhibits, provide content about the history of the organization and expand information about the permanent collections.
3. Revise the infobox, utilizing the museum template, rather than the one currently in place.
4. The image used in the article ([[File:Kamloops-Art-Gallery-2.jpg]]) is a copyright violation. You'll want to remove it. I would recommend drafting a letter to the gallery requesting permission to use the image. You can find sample letters HERE. Once you receive permission, simply forward the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
5. In order to establish notability for organizations, the subject needs to be the focus of significant media coverage in independent, reliable sources. Based on the current state of the article, notability has not been established and could feasibly be deleted if moved to the mainspace. Many times, individuals come to Wikipedia and begin writing an article, followed by feverishly attempting to find sources to support the content. This is putting the cart before the horse. Encyclopedic articles should start by performing extensive research to uncover as much information about the subject as possible. The research is then followed by writing an article, based on the information compiled. Unfortunately, many new editors create articles a bit backwards and face deletion of their article. At this point, it is important to go back and research the subject. Compile the information to determine article content, making sure to provide citations for all content. Let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 03:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Cindamuse. Much appreciated! I have my work cut out for me now ;) Oishiisou (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)