User talk:Lulayellowlab/Sandbox

Some general notes;

On the whole this seems fine in terms of there is no way it would ever be speedy deleted - wether it would survive an AFD is another thing, but it should be okay.
The "Background" needs some work to keep it away from AFD. The background should be about the Common Grant Application company and not grantmaking in general. A briefer background should be given with a link to articles that cover the general topic (possibly grant writing or other articles contained in Category:Grants as a suggestion). To give you an example STS 118 does not need the full background of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster even though it is relevant as background.
The references are okay, although it would be better if you could find some third party sources rather than the CGA's website.
The links in the "users" section are not really good, as they do look a bit spammy and are not references. They would be better delinked.
Regarding the publications - this (to me) implies they are publication made by the Common Grant Application organisation. Assuming not this is really a "Further Reading" section and could be trimmed. However that's editorial rather than being a problem in putting the article into the main space.

As I say, if you can get any other reliable sources that would be ideal, remove the links in th eusers section and feel free to move it into the main space. Just remember it could still end up at AFD and that it will be edited mercilessly by the wider world - so it's highly unlikely to stay in this format! Pedro : Chat 07:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments.

Background - This is an interesting issue. The Common Grant Application is a business that was founded in 2007, and a common grant application is a concept and grant making mechanism in the non-profit world. The business has a name that overlaps with the general concept. I felt that people that want to learn about the specific business will end up at this article, but I also think that some people that may want to learn about the concept will also end up at the article. I'll work on tightening this section up more. On a related note, in my fairly simple review of Wikipedia, I was struck by many other important concepts seemed to be under represented in Wikipedia. I guess that is more work for another day.
References - I point to the references on the Common Grant Application site for a fairly simple reason. The articles that are referenced, were published in paper based third party publications. The publisher of the articles has a number of newsletters and publications, and doesn't post articles on its Web site. The Common Grant Application, as indicated at the bottom of the articles, received permission to reprint the articles and hosts the articles on its site. I could go the other path and delink the references, but I figured the articles were available online so they should be linked. Also, some of the other third party references that are linked, explicitly refer to the Common Grant Application as part of their writing (e.g. Project Streamline and the Chronicle of Philanthropy). This goes back a bit to the earlier notability question and your comment about adding additional reliable sources.
Links - I agree the links to grantseeker and grantmaker users may appear to be a bit spammy, but I provided these to support the earlier question of notability. If you feel they aren't needed to establish notability, then I'd be fine to remove them. I don't know if it is relevant to the discussion here, but the Common App (which is a company focused on the college application process), provides external links to its membership in the body of their article. I used them as an example for this case.
Publications - I agree. Further reading sounds more accurate.

I'll make changes and then move the article to the main page. It will be interesting to see which way the community takes it. Again, thank you for your comments.

21:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)