User talk:Isisgaleno

Welcome!

Hello, Isisgaleno, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft notes

Hi! I have some notes on your draft:

• The writing for this comes across as non-neutral, as it seems to be favorable towards the boutique. It needs to be edited for neutrality - I may help out on this, to be honest.

• This needs more independent, reliable sources to help back up claims as well as establish notability. Here's a rundown of the sourcing:

1. The Eastsider: This is a little shaky, as the site doesn't have a lot of information about its editorial process or if the person who wrote the article is a staff member. The site also allows for sponsored front page posts, so this poses an issue of whether or not it's independent. This is an iffy source and could go either way, but I'm thinking that unless we can show where it's routinely seen as a reliable source by other reliable sources, it may be considered a potentially unreliable source.
2. Boyle Heights Beat: This is a local blog-type source, but it's been praised by some fairly major and notable publications considered to be reliable. It looks like it should be usable.
3. East Los High. This one is a bit iffy, as it's an extra as part of a TV series. I think that this would likely be seen as primary by some editors, as the boutique may have been involved with the TV show to some degree and the content is being narrated by people involved with the company. I wouldn't rely on this to establish notability.
4. LAT. The LAT is reliable, however the boutique is only mentioned in passing - this makes it more of a trivial source and can't establish notability.
5. Fusion. I wasn't able to bring this up so I'm going to assume that it's likely a news spot. This could be usable, however be cautious since Fusion is also a satire site. This could impact whether or not some editors consider it to be reliable. I'm going to lean towards it being usable, though, since the description gives off the impression that it's a serious piece conducted by the news wing.
6. Enclave: This is unlikely to be seen as a reliable source for a few reasons. The first is that there's not a lot about their editorial processes and the second is that the person who runs the site is a PR person. This in turn poses a question of whether or not the site is an extension of his promotional work and company, as some of the posts could be sponsored - that is, paid article spaces. Even if this one piece isn't, a site that posts sponsored posts is typically seen as unreliable.
7. KCET: This looks like it should be usable - the channel looks to be a fairly well thought of educational channel. There may be some pushback, however, as much of it is an interview. Interviews are typically seen as primary source since they're not always QC'd for their content and the content is coming directly from someone involved with the company. I don't always agree with this since I consider that the person/topic/etc was seen as notable enough by the outlet to highlight and as such should be a sign of notability, however it's a frequent mindset on Wikipedia.
8. Amoeba Music: This is the blog of a notable music chain. As such, there's a big question as to whether or not this would be seen as a reliable source since sales websites don't always apply the best editorial oversight. I'm going to lean towards this not being a really reliable source since there's no information about their editorial oversight.

This poses an issue since only a couple of the sources are really usable to establish notability. As such, I'm a little concerned that someone could see this as non-notable. It would be good to try to find more coverage, if possible.

The main concerns are pretty much sourcing and neutrality - with sourcing being the main issue. I can help clean up the prose, but if there's not enough sourcing to establish notability then this will put the article at risk of getting deleted once it's moved live. I'll see what I can find as far as sourcing goes. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Espacio 1839

Hello, Isisgaleno. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Espacio 1839".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)