This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Evidence Aid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article seems to have a promotional tone and much of the language used is of a promotional nature. Huddsblue ( talk) 22:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I have worked on removing weasel words and content plus adding more references and also added links in from Cochrane and typhoon Haiyan page. I took out testimonials and quotes except left one in the awareness section. I tried to state more where the org started what they do etc and took out content that might be construed as promotional. If I have missed things or are blind to them I am happy to make changes so that this is a good page AmyEBHC ( talk) 18:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I am so excited to be able to do this and it would not be possible without all the help from other more senior editors. Thank you for the edits, I will use this format and style in future,it makes the article more readable and looks professional, many thanks AmyEBHC ( talk) 07:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Also appears to have very close ties to this company. I have reason to believe that this could be a promotional article. Huddsblue ( talk) 22:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no COI, membership or financial interest in this Evidence Aid org. It is an organization made up of volunteers for disaster relief. I work with none of their people on any common project. The only tie is writing a blog about them. If you would like to point out specific language you feel is of a promotional nature I will correct this. It is all backed up and referenced by accomplished and respected authors in the field of medicine and disaster relief from reputable academic journals. I had it in my sandbox and was advised by Wiki Project Medicine that though not perfect it was ready to be launch as an active page. If you have reasons state them clearly please, otherwise it is just an accusation without evidence. I have reason to believe is not sufficient AmyEBHC ( talk) 22:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
BullRangifer apologies for any offence caused has been given. Thank you, AmyEBHC ( talk) 03:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead section could use some more editing. The first sentence should state "what Evidence Aid is". Next should come "what Evidence Aid does and briefly how". Then founder, date of establishment etc. Followed by summary of accomplishments. Think encyclopedia. The reader wants to answer the most basic question first, then get a general understanding. There is repetition that needs cut. The lede should be a very concise overview of the article. See WP:Lede, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points..." - - MrBill3 ( talk) 04:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This section needs more references. They should be third-party, independent secondary references. If these contributions are notable and significant enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, they will have been covered in quality sources. The best would be journal articles noting and evaluating these contributions. Publications other than journals that cover the field of disaster relief/humanitarian aid are good sources. Other possible references would be newspaper and magazine articles that explicitly discuss the activites/contributions of Evidence Aid. At the very least some documentation that these activities occurred is needed. Evidence Aid itself is not really an acceptable source, Blogs and websites have limited standing as reliable sources. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 04:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay I have found journal reference, they were also listed on Evidence Aid so thought that was redundant but agree they should be cited separately. I am travelling and speaking the next few days but I will do this as quickly as possible and very much appreciate the insight AmyEBHC ( talk) 22:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It's dated 2011 but hopefully this will be of use to you: [1]
Thanks great article, I added this AmyEBHC ( talk) 21:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Evidence Aid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article seems to have a promotional tone and much of the language used is of a promotional nature. Huddsblue ( talk) 22:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I have worked on removing weasel words and content plus adding more references and also added links in from Cochrane and typhoon Haiyan page. I took out testimonials and quotes except left one in the awareness section. I tried to state more where the org started what they do etc and took out content that might be construed as promotional. If I have missed things or are blind to them I am happy to make changes so that this is a good page AmyEBHC ( talk) 18:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I am so excited to be able to do this and it would not be possible without all the help from other more senior editors. Thank you for the edits, I will use this format and style in future,it makes the article more readable and looks professional, many thanks AmyEBHC ( talk) 07:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Also appears to have very close ties to this company. I have reason to believe that this could be a promotional article. Huddsblue ( talk) 22:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no COI, membership or financial interest in this Evidence Aid org. It is an organization made up of volunteers for disaster relief. I work with none of their people on any common project. The only tie is writing a blog about them. If you would like to point out specific language you feel is of a promotional nature I will correct this. It is all backed up and referenced by accomplished and respected authors in the field of medicine and disaster relief from reputable academic journals. I had it in my sandbox and was advised by Wiki Project Medicine that though not perfect it was ready to be launch as an active page. If you have reasons state them clearly please, otherwise it is just an accusation without evidence. I have reason to believe is not sufficient AmyEBHC ( talk) 22:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
BullRangifer apologies for any offence caused has been given. Thank you, AmyEBHC ( talk) 03:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead section could use some more editing. The first sentence should state "what Evidence Aid is". Next should come "what Evidence Aid does and briefly how". Then founder, date of establishment etc. Followed by summary of accomplishments. Think encyclopedia. The reader wants to answer the most basic question first, then get a general understanding. There is repetition that needs cut. The lede should be a very concise overview of the article. See WP:Lede, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points..." - - MrBill3 ( talk) 04:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This section needs more references. They should be third-party, independent secondary references. If these contributions are notable and significant enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, they will have been covered in quality sources. The best would be journal articles noting and evaluating these contributions. Publications other than journals that cover the field of disaster relief/humanitarian aid are good sources. Other possible references would be newspaper and magazine articles that explicitly discuss the activites/contributions of Evidence Aid. At the very least some documentation that these activities occurred is needed. Evidence Aid itself is not really an acceptable source, Blogs and websites have limited standing as reliable sources. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 04:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay I have found journal reference, they were also listed on Evidence Aid so thought that was redundant but agree they should be cited separately. I am travelling and speaking the next few days but I will do this as quickly as possible and very much appreciate the insight AmyEBHC ( talk) 22:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It's dated 2011 but hopefully this will be of use to you: [1]
Thanks great article, I added this AmyEBHC ( talk) 21:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)