Talk:Ronald D. Mehl

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Christianity: Charismatic Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

Notability

The subject of this articl does not meet any of the automatic inclusion criteria per WP:BIO such as being a past/present member of a state legislature. This means their must be significant, non-trivial media coverage of the subject that is independent of the subject. For instance articles from The Oregonian (not just church announcements re-printed by the paper but something that involved journalism), local TV coverage, or even "trade" magazines if there are any. Aboutmovies 00:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Response

Response was sent to Aboutmovies with questions about this article, am waiting for a response before edits are made to address the comments.JWLang 05:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple items regarding the "references" section: The link to the history of the Foursquare Church is what is called "trivial coverage" in that the article is not about Mehl, he is just mentioned in passing. The Congressional Record part is better, but it is not in depth coverage such as a biography would have (things like when/where someone was born, where they grew up, etc.). More references like these are what are needed. The CNNW is better, but I don't know if it would pass muster as a Secondary Source, since it may not be peer reviewed. Better are mainstream media such as major newspapers and magazines that demonstrate a more widely known status. Another problem with the article, and what drew my attention to it to begin with, is that this is not an encycopedic entry. All articles must be written from a neutral point of view and should avoid peacock terms. For instance, don't say "tremendous" growth as that is a value judgement. Give the actual statistics and let the reader decide what type of growth it was. Spiritual awakening is another judgment call, and does that sound like something you would read in a print edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica on an article describing a church? Not to be flip, but maybe they all just had nothing better to do? Increased numbers in attendence (at a church or elsewhere) only show an increase in attendence, any inference becomes a value judgment. Then through the "blessings of God" bit, is there a statement from God quoted somewhere to back this up? No, again it is a value judgment that since things went well it was because of God. That might offend a Hindu who believes in no such single devine entity. Stick to the dry facts. Aboutmovies 04:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understood. Will clean the peacock terms. Most were taken from sources used, but I understand the feedback, thanks; this is extremely helpful feedback for a new author. FYI, Christian News Northwest is both electronic and hard copy, a monthly periodical with circulation over 30,000 (in case you've not had the oppty to check). If I understand you comment on peer review, it is a member of the Fellowship of Christian Newspapers (FCN), a national association that is a sub-group of the Evangelical Press Association.JWLang 19:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking a lot better. See if you can work a few more sources into the article and then the notability tag can go. Peer review is sort of a key thing, we trust a small circulating academic journal that is throughly scrutinized than say the National Enquierer that though has a large circultation, may not be scrutinized to the same degree. I'm not saying the CNNW is either type, just that circulation figures alone are not great to go off when determining a reliable source. You might check the Oregonian archives to see if there are any stories about him, and if not they would likely have an obit which would have additional info that could be worked into the article. Note an obit in the obituary section would not go towards notability, but one that was part of the regular news coverage would go towards establishing notability. Basically, if the newspaper wrote the obit, notable. If the family wrote it and sent it in then not notable. On a side note, since you said you were using info from other sources, please be careful about copyright violations. Don't just copy and paste. Use the info, but put it in your own words. Another good item to read is this since it is a general how to for biographies here on Wikipedia. Aboutmovies 23:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References updated to include articles published in The Oregonian, including a front page feature article.JWLang 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the notable tag, now the sources need some work. I formatted the two Oregonian articles into two different standardized citations. Use either one. One uses a template as a sort of training wheels, the other just puts all the info into a recognizable format. Try to use what we call inline citations, they are hat appear as footnotes. Basically put the info you want to appear in the footnote between the <ref> and the </ref>, note the slight difference between the two. If you are going to use a source for more than one item, then begin the first time by labeling the reference such as: <ref name=oregonian> write the citation info here </ref> and then each subsequent use of that source can be referenced by writing only <ref name=oregonian/>, again notice the slight difference with the "/" added. If you have any other questions about this, see WP:CITE. Aboutmovies 19:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]