Talk:Reelkandi

Discussions relevant to the WP:AFC draft>Submit>review>edit>resubmit process

Too few independent reliable sources You have too few independent reliable sources to make a claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC) About context Gryllida, you kindly commented and declined my publication on Draft:Reelkandi your wrote... it's not clear to me what distinguishes this subject from others -- encyclopedias usually are about stuff that got a prominent attention from the outside (and 70 million views a month doesn't tell me much unless you put it into context of country-wide or worldwide statistics in this area) please consider adding more context in addition to the current description of the article subject -- reading existing references should be enough but they may need a thorough analysis Smiley.svg... please explain what you mean when you say "please consider adding more context in addition to the current description of the article subject" thankyou Jgscanlon2099 Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Hi. An amazing advantage of drafts is that they have a real talk page, like articles, where all draft discussion may be useful to have. You are able to link to this talk page anywhere — on reviewers talk page, for instance — suggesting that they read your questions or participate in a discussion here. By suggesting to add more context, I'm suggesting that you find things — such as the 70m views fact — that define a clear position the article subject in the surrounding world. That's necessary to reach a state termed as encyclopedic, whose main feature is comprehensiveness — that is, we have to capture the entirety of information, not only its part which is appealing to us at a given time. Currently the article looks like a chronicle and it's hard for the reader to focus. I've restructured it a little to make it easier on the eyes. That included splitting some paragraphs, lowercasing words which are not brand or people names, replacing "&" with "and". Ideally, we'd need to go a little more in this direction by removing repeating wikilinks — they only need to be there for a first occurrence of a term. But that's optional and is not hard to read, anyway. While doing so, I've removed some generic sentences and paragaphs. They're perhaps trying to justify what video on demand and digital marketing do. Some of this may be retained in an article, but it's assumed that the relevant video on demand and digital marketing articles are sufficiently detailed about this. For readers unfamiliar with what video on demand is, on the first occurrence of the term, I like to add a brief note. It's more common for brand names though; these two terms are self-explanatory, although with "online video on demand" phase I might add a small note "..., targeting mobile audience". That brings the point across and satisfies the purpose of comprehsiveness without clutter; there is no need in dedicating an entire paragraph to the concept. Similarly with native advertising — the "by integrating brands into the Television show’s existing editorial dialogue format" phrase mentioned once brings the point across. I've also went through the entire draft and left inline comments. In the beta editor, they're visible as small pale grey "(!)" icons, while in the editor you'll find them enclosed in <!-- and -->. Hope that's of help. Again, hope to see more questions here as we work through the draft. --Gryllida (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC) can you look at my latest revision done today? i have added many more links, references, and re-written things, and also deleted all the sections you crossd out.. version 2 :) gryllida, do you mean that we talk here? as i have worked more on the article, see what you think of my article? Jgscanlon2099 --Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Hi Jgscanlon2099, thanks for going through the changes I had suggested. About the first line: Reelkandi.tv is an online Entertainment & Lifestyle Television Channel[1][2][3][4][5] I've removed capitalization of 'Entertainment' and 'Lifestyle' and 'Television' and 'Channel'. Articles are named with a capital, but you can link to lifestyle and the link'll still work - while lowercase words are more readable. This Is Not Very Easy To Read, Especially When It Is a Long Sentence. I've replaced with '&' with 'and' too. Both these comments are mentioned by me yesterday during my first edits, on this talk page above. (My notes contain a lot of stuff that needs extra effort and is optional, but this one, while being optional, does not require extra effort during writing. Hence I strongly recommend to follow these suggestions at the time of writing.) Additionally, I've also removed the citations 1-5. The first paragraph (and anything before the first paragraph, really, with exception of outstanding facts) isn't supposed to have inline citations. I've added a 'video-on-demand' link. It appears to be an important feature of the article subject to me. About the second paragraph: It was Conceptually Founded by Earl Carpenter[6][7][8], a renown West End theatre stage actor who is currently playing in the Broadway version of Les Misérables. Reelkandi.tv was incorporated in the United Kingdom in 2012[9][10]. I've removed the capitalisation on the "Conceptually Founded" words. Possibly in German nouns start with capital, but in English, doing so makes them hard to read. I'm not sure what fact 'renown' is meant to convey. Currently it reads as bias due to lack of clarity; I've resolved this by removing the word, but you're welcome to re-add it if you'd like to add some more informative meaning around it. These are all fixed by my last edits. Currently the article is a factual description of Reelkandi.tv from the inside. It's like walking to a car shop and spending a year describing the color and material of its seats, while missing that it's the best-selling solar car for the last 2 decades. Surely such context is important for an encyclopedia? I'd like to see more research on how the outside world sees the article subject. For instance, the "History" section needs to be more clear about the position of Reelkandi.tv in the UK. Was it the 2nd most popular video content producer? 3rd most popular? Over what time span? Over what geographical or demographic group? What makes the figures useful for the reader? Readers of an encyclopedia are expected to get the essential information, not to process raw figures by hand. Other things to consider may be user reception, extra statistics, local and international awards. --Gryllida (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks again for your helpful comments Gryllida. I have some questions regarding specific points above, as all make sense, its more about approach... I have a lot of information (such as demographics, audience, impact in marketplace compared to more well known brands,geographic info), but a lot of it i have from researching this overall area (Video on Demand and Native advertising) and much of it hasnt been independently verified, i.e. its very interesting for the reader, but not verified by independent publications (as its a very new area, namely Native Advertising, which in itself is a big change in the world of Advertising and how people get to see brands,so this is a company of notoriety leading that area with the features i mention...so i have steered clear of this information, as i cant verify it independently, other than information i have (from the company) and information i have taken from conferences, etc.... journal events, that would allow me to write this, but how do i approach that, as it seems to be this particular information that you're not seeing, but that i have, unverified... Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I might suggest to try to filter the information carefully with the purpose of retaining only verified parts of it. (Being familiar with a subject from one side closely may complicate the process of writing an article, but if you'd like to focus on this task, it's achievable.) --Gryllida (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC) version 3 :) Gryllida, here is my latest edit and additions to the history and section above it, giving more timelines and demonstrating what was of notoriety in what i was reporting. Please can you review. i must say, when i was cross referencing against several wiki pages, i found a distinct lack of proiven refrence and a lot of artistic license by the writers with claims and phrases that made me think, how those articles eveyr got approved, as mine has been much more scrutinised, anyway here we are...please an you check, most kind of you. Added comments inline. --Gryllida (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC) Suggestions Moved from draft itself to here. -Gryllida (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Please look very carefully at items like "was available only on the Internet [21][22][15][23][24]." where the number of citations is WP:CITEKILL. I'm sure you are striving for good referencing, but there is point when it becomes excessive. Please select (ideal) one excellent reference per point, (acceptable) two excellent references per point, (allowable) three xcellent references per point. More than this interrupts the reader's flow, and we write for our readership. What I suggest you do is a process: Assess each of the references in this area. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. If it does not meet these criteria, dump it. Choose at most the top three for each point, and use only those three. Consider repurposing the references you drop where they can be used to cite other facts By doing this you will create a far tighter article. I have purposely not assessed your references themselves, preferring to leave this to you. I can say clearly that not attending to this point (CITEKILL) woudl be a gating factor in my acceptance, but I have chosen not to decline at this stage, simply to advise. As you know you can improve the draft all the time it is awaiting review even after submission. Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Some more on the text Moved from draft itself to here. -Gryllida (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Thank you for pruning the citations. Good work. I can now concentrate on the text, and am having a few issues with tone, such that I see some as over the border into promotional because it is magazine-like. Look at paragraphs like "With Reelkandi focusing on Native Advertising as an alternative to providing generic video advertising for consumer products and services, the online video channel provided a point of differentiation in the Advertising Industry Marketplace, against its competition, when launched in 2011. At that point, very few online publishers and online video channels included this Native Advertising capability in their offering, focusing only on providing space for video and digital display banner adverts,which are separate to the content being featured[" and consider about it: Does it add value to the article, period? How could its tone be modified to be crisper, yet 'dull-but-worthy'? Use your conclusions to look with an editor's eye at all the prose in the draft and see what you need to cut. While you are, probably, certain that all the material is valid, some may be replaced entirely by a single wikilink (even if that article has not been written yet). Our role is not to describe underlying concepts in this "Corporate biography", but to write those in other articles if they are absent. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. My view is that you have too much pleasant verbiage and not enough proportion of hard, cited facts for this to be accepted yet. I say this with the jaundiced eye of one who both proposes that some article be deleted and who tries hard to save others. Fiddle Faddle 12:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC) VERSION 4 ;-) Gryllida, so... Changes from Sunday 7th September 2014, 11:07 as follows: (i) Lines deleted where crossed out by wiki editor (ii) Grammatical changes made for better reading, (iii) Further cite web references added in first and second sections, (iv) Definition of Native advertising has been made clearly to the general viewer, who is unlikely to know of its impact on the marketplace and as a reader, so should be more clear and… (v) Where Reelkandi fit into this ecosystem (vi) Earlier reference to Native advertising is now made in the first section, as advised by editor. Please can you review, hopefully we are there now, as i have worked hard on addressing your previous concerns you left inline, many thanks for your guidance and constructive comments, lets hope we can get there now! Also note a comment came thru this morning from Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC), who kindly warned me of "over citing" web references, and only keeping cite's to a max of 3 in all cases, so i deleted any that were over the 3 references, and chose the best, most renown ones... Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Fiddle Faddle left a next comment — at the draft top — please work on it. :-) (I'm not sure where comments should go; hopefully they'd go here from both of us as time goes.) --Gryllida (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC) version 5? Note for Timtrent/ Timtrent Fiddle Faddle from Jgscanlon2099 cc: Gryllida i have finished rewriting the article again, putting more of an editors view on the article, as you suggest and making amendments and creating further links, please can you look at it and comment, pre review, many thanks Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Referencing Moved from draft itself to here. -Gryllida (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC) There is a basic misunderstanding of referencing. Referemces must be about Reelkandi. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Many references in this draft are not about Reelkandi at all. Fiddle Faddle 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC Draft reviews, discussion started 8 September 2014 For Timtrent Fiddle Faddle regarding your helpful comment (as follows) "Comment: There is a basic misunderstanding of referencing. Referemces must be about Reelkandi. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Many references in this draft are not about Reelkandi at all. Fiddle Faddle 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)" some headline responses.. 1 In response, as i understood from Gryllida, i was advised to better put in context the information i was putting about reelkandi, by matching it with the greater surrounding (to give it better context), so i assumed that would mean what are other major events/contributions happening in this area/topic (of native advertising and reelkandi in relation to online video) i.e. in context of the industry addressing size, importance, as well as her requesting more information about native advertising (as it is a relatively new subject matter), which made sense to me, so this is how i addressed it, editorially speaking, by explaining what others were doing in the marketplace versus what reelkandi were doing and using cite website references. The issue for me is that in response to many helpful comments from both you and Jgscanlon2099 i either havent referenced enough or too much (with other 'players' in this marketplace) and now am confused as to how to revise the edit, based on your comments, bare in mind this is actually about my 18th 'large' editorial change (effectively complete re-write) in trying to address this particular matter, so now im not so sure WHICH way to go to exercise the point, please advise/help.many thanks on this ... 2 also, please you comment on my change of style from what you described as "magazine, description" to a more "editors-eye" view, which i took on board, i need to know if i have approached this better?I spent many hours on this, but no comment was made, would be good to know. 3 Also, at times i get constructive comments from both you and Gryllidaabout not using 'enough references', but it seems i am misunderstanding this as i have about 1 reference to almost every line, (when i compare to other articles in this space that i look at, it is dramatically more and yet they have been long approved with fewer references), so i thought i had placed many references, so unsure of how to address your comment. 4 can you help re comment significant coverage? i thought i already did that so now not sure what you mean.. about the entity, ? which entitiy? if reelkandi, i thought i had done that, please elaborate, as i dont know how to action from this comment. and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42 - i know this page well, but it seems in my attempt to put context to it, and talk of other larger companies in the space, it appears to have not been considered the right move, unless i misunderstood Gryllida's original comments Please advise, as it appears the editorial comments are getting more (constructive) critical, the further i go on, and yet im doubling the effort thinking im addressing it better but its fairing worse in terms of reviews...so something is going wrong for me somewhere?!! many thanks, hope you take my frustration in good cause. Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I will do my best to reply. First, though, do not use ==== as a sectio nheaidng. Replace the middle two equals signs by real words, ideally unique ones. My comments are about this version, current at the time I am answering. The entity is Reelkandi, the topic of your draft. If a reference is not about it then it is a reference for something else entirely. It has to be about Reelkandi or it has no place in the draft. This is your sole misunderstanding that I see in the draft. Let me try to explain further, if I can. If an article is about "Foo", and a sentence reads "Foo is the largest Bar in the word" a reference must ba to show that Foo is, indeed, the largest Bar. But we may not have a reference to show what a Bar is. Bar is referenced in its own article. Indeed, we must not digress into explaining what a Bar is in the article about Foo, because the article is about Foo. I have reformatted your comment, above to remove the odd formatting. Significant coverage This is more than a passing mention. A reference about Foo must be a worthwhile chunk of text. "Foo came to the party" is a passing mention. A fuller description of the rationale for Foo's presence at the party and how important it was is significant coverage. About the entity I have covered your query earlier in my reply Independent of it It may not be something said or written by Reelkandi, it must be another's opinion, commentary, statement. This means that an interview fails unless it has a commentary. A newsletter by Reelkani fails. Programming by Reelkandi fails. An event run by, even sponsored by Reelkandi fails Reviews tend to become more rigorous as the reviewers can see the meat of the article from amid the earlier material in which we often drown. The process is iterative because it is easier to help a new author step by step. Getting rid of material that ought to be changed or removed allows clarity in reviewing the remainder. This is a good thing despite the effect that reviews as we get onto the meat of the article appear to be tougher. If you consider this from the outside I doubt you would have it happen any other way. It teaches you your craft and is, with precision, the purpose of the Articles for Creation process. Often a review will ask an author to cut great swathes of what they are certain makes an article a great article. This is like slaying their first born child, or, rather, asking them to slay it. The challenge is that writing for WIkipedia is remarkably hard work. LIke all places there are styles to consider. A wikipedia article is not, for example, a magazine article. Most new authors would find it far easier to wrote a magazine article than to write a WIkipedia article. Each, though, has editorial standards which need to be followed. And that brings me to the many hours you have spent revising the style. I think you are 75% of the way there. The lead is far tighter. Lose, though, the paragraph starting "Native Advertising describes an event " (see my comments on describing things not directly about Reelkandi) The History section is, regrettably, still far too chatty. This is not a gating factor in itself. Once accepted other editors are likely to edit it. Even so, try for "Dull but worthy" in stead of chatty. "Afternoone Tease" for me ought to merit a separate article, assuming it is, of itself, WP:N. We would not place all the shows the BBS has produced within a BBC article. So it is with Reelkandi. I recommend the splitting this out into Draft:Afternoon Tease. If you agree then simply do it. I suggest you use the WP:AFC page and click to create a new article. That will add the various things to let you submit it. Note that not all reviewers will agree about everything. All you need to do is sufficient to show the person who does a formal review that the article will fly and you have cracked it. I have chosen not to give a formal accept/decline review because I felt we woudl interact better through comments, not by simply declining the material at this stage. Remember: All of us want to accept your draft. Your job is to allow us to. It's moving forwards well. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 07:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Thankyou for your comments Thankyou Faddle for taking the time to explain more where im going wrong/right, i will read it over a few more times before i knuckle down and edit this. I think its a good idea about the Afternoon Tease creating a new draft, how does one do that, just "create new draft"? Thankyou once again for really explaining it well to me, most appreciated and feel a litte more motivated to get this right once and for all! Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) The review/edit/resubmit process is tough, I agree. Far tougher is defending an article against deletion. This may be hard, but that is soul destroying. Take your time, and do it little by little. There is no deadline. Since it is submitted currently It may be accepted or rejected at any point. Neither should be the end of the road. Just treat either outcome as a part of the process of creating a decent aeticle. To handle Afternoon Tease, go to WP:AFC and click "Click here to create an article now!" and follow through. Cut the section from here and paste it there. Then work on it as well as this one. I will explain anything I am able to explain. Just ask me enough precise questions so that I understand what you need to know. Fiddle Faddle 10:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Out of curiousity, what does Afternoon Tease do — are we creating a new draft? Gryllida (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Question about removing article before it gets declined? Fiddle Is there a way we can remove it from getting approval until we've got our ducks in order, so to speak? Jgscanlon2099 Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Answered on my own talk page in more detail. There is no need to be concerned in any way. See the message there. Fiddle Faddle 17:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Tidying up the first paragraphs I've processed the first paragraphs (the ones above the first section) for you. A fair share of them was about native advertising itself, so I left out only the bits essential for understanding what it does. During this process, I had to also strike out some of the inline citations, under assumption that they're only related to native advertising in general and are not Reelkandi-specific; before removing the content I strike out, please make sure no useful references are gone by mistake. I left a suggestion where one more citation is missing and should be added — to support the claim that Reelkandi pioneered native advertising (presumably in the UK). --Gryllida (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Suggestions Reelkandi was founded by Earl Carpenter[2][3][4], a West End theatre stage actor who played the lead role in Phantom of the Opera[5] and who in August 2013 featured in the Broadway version of Les Misérables[6][7][8]. I would perhaps swap the order of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs for easier reader focus. That many citations about Earl Carpenter appears to be distracting and preventing proper focus. (It doesn't have to be chronological.) Native Advertising Corrected to lowercase. As a term it is simply native advertising. I concur that the draft is better than it was a few days ago. Thanks. :-) --Gryllida (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Out of draft room

It looks like the thing has been moved to main namespace. Hooray. Thanks Darylgolden and Primefac for cleaning it up and doing the move. And thanks a lot to Jgscanlon2099 and Timtrent for the collaboration above.

We should expect some more feedback in the next couple days. :-) --Gryllida (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from the AFC process

I have collapsed these above. They are interesting history, but my view is that they are no longer required to be in full view now the draft has been accepted. If others disagree let us discuss it and reach a consensus. Fiddle Faddle 16:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

They're still editable, so I don't mind. (Especially as in my JavaScriptless experience, they're also visible, just in an extra border.) --Gryllida (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

thankyou for your help and guidance

big thankyou to Gryllida and of course Faddle for all your patience, guidance, and constructive help that got us to this stage, an inspiration on how you handle things, the experience has been great and frustrating, but one has learnt much in the process, a happy student. For Darylgolden and Primefac love and respect.

Jgscanlon2099 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)