Nlowell 2010
Welcome
editHello, Nlowell 2010, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I notice that one of the first articles you have edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been reverted for this very reason.
To reduce the chances of deletion, you might like to draft your article before submission, then get me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.
The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that if more than one person is using this account to edit, then unfortunately it will be blocked from editing.
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've been working into the idea here (slowly I hope) and learning the ropes. I've just done a major revision of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Immortals_%28novel%29 and wonder if you'd take a look at it to see if I'm on the right track. What I did was join the Novel and Podcasting Projects - both fields which I have some knowledge in - and then found a stub article about a novel that spanned the two. I have no direct interest in this work so conflict of interest shouldn't be an issue. I took the novel template, applied it to the original article, moved the notation about podcast adaptation to the correct area within the template and added the reference info from Publisher's Weekly, ISBN's for publication history etc. (Do I need to reference where those came from? or is it sufficient to list them?) Thanks. Nlowell 2010 (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- So far so good. :-) The one thing I would note, though, is that generally the plot summary, so long as it is pure plot summary and no interpretation, does not need a reference. I did cleanup the reference formatting a bit. The bigger concern, however, is whether the work is notable. So far, it does not appear to be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Let me go back and look at the notability requirements for the novel. I thought this had already passed a referendum on that or i wouldn't have wasted my time on it. I'll also check on how/where I can grab an image for the cover. I purposely did NOT just take one from the web because of copyright issues, but lemme see what the novel people say about it. I'm *really* struggling with this notability issue because i think podcasting, and podcast fiction in particular is a notable movement but because mainstream press is not considering it, it's not being written about. Nlowell 2010 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- You can use a cover from the web. It is frequently done. The image would need the appropriate FUR and sourcing info, and ideally shouldn't be more than 300-350 pixels wide. In general, to meet notability requirements, the novel must have significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. For novels, this is most often established through reviews. 3-4 would generally be enough, but they must be reliable reviews - so ones in blogs, personal sites, sites like ePinions, and user-submitted reviews would not count. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I found the appropriate section in the infobox for books and I think I've got that. I can find three reviews - Library Journal, Publisher's Weekly, and Kirkus - but those aren't NY Review of Books caliber. More like stuff practically every book gets. Well if nothing else it's good practice, but as i'm looking around here, it seems like notability is a major issue that's ignored in a lot of cases. Can anybody challenge notability? Nlowell 2010 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Those are fine. All three are considered reliable sources and enough to establish basic notability, though of course more reviews is always better :-). And yes, anyone can challenge notability (and with so many articles, many do indeed slip through). Notability can be challenged through a speedy deletion request, adding a notability tag, proposing it for deletion, or where discussion may be needed, sending it to articles for deletion. I've worked on several novel articles, which are almost all now good articles. If it would help with working on a reception section and general formatting/content for novel articles, please feel free to take a look at them: Lad, a Dog, White Dog (book), The Fox and the Hound (novel), and Wolf: A Journey Home (the later, in particular, has only four reviews, but there was enough material to establish notability and craft a full article). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, then. Thanks for your insight. Nlowell 2010 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Those are fine. All three are considered reliable sources and enough to establish basic notability, though of course more reviews is always better :-). And yes, anyone can challenge notability (and with so many articles, many do indeed slip through). Notability can be challenged through a speedy deletion request, adding a notability tag, proposing it for deletion, or where discussion may be needed, sending it to articles for deletion. I've worked on several novel articles, which are almost all now good articles. If it would help with working on a reception section and general formatting/content for novel articles, please feel free to take a look at them: Lad, a Dog, White Dog (book), The Fox and the Hound (novel), and Wolf: A Journey Home (the later, in particular, has only four reviews, but there was enough material to establish notability and craft a full article). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- So far so good. :-) The one thing I would note, though, is that generally the plot summary, so long as it is pure plot summary and no interpretation, does not need a reference. I did cleanup the reference formatting a bit. The bigger concern, however, is whether the work is notable. So far, it does not appear to be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Nathan Lowell article
editWhen I wrote the article about you it never occurred to me that you might not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In my book you are one of the most notable writers, but it is not my book that counts. In my opinion I still think that Wikipedia would be a better place with an article about you rather than without, but my opinion is admittedly biased. If it is the consensus of the other editors that the article does not meet the guidelines that have been written, then I guess I have to support that decision. The guidelines have helped make Wikipedia what it is, and so far they have worked pretty well. So if the article is deleted, I apologize for writing it before its time, for I believe that eventually you will meet whatever guidelines are established. Your work is just too good for it not to be recognized by a much wider audience. Sorry that you had to be bothered by all this. And for what it is worth, thank you for writing your stories.
-- Fl1n7 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
New WikiProject Novels initiative
editWe have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I was just looking over the list of members on the Podcasting group and wanted to see if you were still active in the project. If so, it looks like the project could use a little jump-start. In particular, I think notability requirements and assessment guidelines could be added/updated. Please check out the page if you're still interested and move your name to the 2011 active list. Thanks! Udeezy (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February
editThank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members