Talk:White House Historical Association
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Assessment comment
[edit]The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:White House Historical Association/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This artical really helped me. Well, I mean, it could have helped me more I guess. But, now I know some books to locate, and a couple of things about the curator's job. I admit, it could use some more information, but I think it's a good start. |
Last edited at 19:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
COI edit requests
[edit]![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. |
Hi! The WHHA is a client of mine, and I've drafted an updated version of this article in my sandbox. Typically I would created a marked up version of this mockup with all the changes from the current article annotated, but in this case I can't because it's a complete rewrite of the existing article. Changes include:
- Adding an infobox
- Adding sources and citations throughout
- Organizing into sections
- Fleshing out history and scope of current activities based on available sources
- Rewriting in accordance with sources and with attention to avoiding plagiarism
Sorry this one's a bit tougher to review, but I think it's a big improvement! Looking forward to your feedback. Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Reply 8-FEB-2020
[edit]- For future reference, a diff of the requested changes may be found here.
- Text from the proposal was found to be insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. Needless to say, text which is proposed to be added to an article needs to be written using an editor's own words and phrases.
Regards, Spintendo 16:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Edit request
[edit]![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. |
@Spintendo: Hi, and thank you for flagging that – when I updated the sources and made sure the wording aligned I lost track of checking for additional copyvio. Those sentences are updated now and I'm reopening the request. Here's a link to an updated diff. Thanks again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Reply 27-FEB-2020
[edit]Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request. Spintendo 09:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Proposal review 27-FEB-2020
|
---|
|
@MaryGaulke: in looking at a few of the claims in the unreviewed section, I would see running into problems where a source makes one claim regarding the White House Endowment Fund and the proposed text uses that source to make a claim about the Historical Association, a circumstance which happens more than once in that section. I understand that one administers the other, but the closenes of the two as implied in this edit request lends weight to the argument that the two articles ought to be merged. As it stands, both articles are fairly weak with references when in their separate states, even with an un-altered proposal factored in (the use of the Melania article as reference for claims it does not make is one example of this; the articles on the Endowment Fund used to reference claims about the Association is another.) I believe that they might both be strengthened if they were merged into one article. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this when you get a chance. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo 16:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
revised edit requests
[edit]![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi! Again, COI editor representing the WHHA here. I've incorporated Spintendo's feedback above and revised my proposed updated draft of this article. Here's a link to a current diff. Updates include:
- Adding an infobox
- Adding sources and citations throughout
- Organizing into sections
- Fleshing out history and scope of current activities based on available sources
Thanks so much for any time/feedback. Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- MaryGaulke, please replace the sources from the Daily Mail and Newsweek. Per WP:RSPSOURCES, the Daily Mail has been deprecated and usage generally prohibited; Newsweek after 2013 is not considered generally reliable.
- Sdrqaz (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz: Hi, thanks for reviewing! I've now replaced both those sources in the draft – here's an updated diff. Please let me know if you have any other feedback. Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Done, MaryGaulke. I am now happy to fulfil that edit request. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz: Hi, thanks for reviewing! I've now replaced both those sources in the draft – here's an updated diff. Please let me know if you have any other feedback. Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stub-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Stub-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Stub-Class District of Columbia articles
- Unknown-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Stub-Class organization articles
- Unknown-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions
- Declined requested edits
- Implemented requested edits