User talk:ZR1987
Welcome!
[edit]Hi ZR1987! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! JarrahTree 07:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
A couple questions about Draft:Administrative Justice
[edit]Greetings!
I happened to stumble on the draft article you recently submitted at articles for creation, namely Draft:Administrative Justice. I thought I might be of assistance by clearing up a couple formalities and giving some feedback on the substance of the article, to shield you from potential disappointment over what I judge to be the likely outcome of the AfC submission process.
First off: Would you happen to be the Zach Richards cited as a source in the article ‒ Z. Richards, Responsive Legality: The New Administrative Justice (Abingdon, England; New York, NY: Routledge, 2019)?
Pardon my nosiness and suspicious mind, but I couldn't help but notice your user account has the same initials; also, 1987 doesn't seem far off the mark as Dr. Richards's year of birth, based on publically available photographs.
If my guess is way off-base, feel free to ignore the related contents of this message.
If I am correct in my assumption, that is certainly not to say the topic doesn't deserve to be covered on Wikipedia. Whether 'Administrative Justice' should be a stand-alone entry in this encyclopedia is determined by this subject's notability. Given that the term is in the titles of several scholarly monographs, it may very well be notable. (Though whether the concept posesses any currency in twenty-first century scholarship, outside your own work, would need to be established.) Otherwise, it might bear integration into present articles about public administration or social science, maybe even in its own section.
It seems that what is there now (10 July 2024, UTC 17:47) is a very brief run-down of what the term is referring to, a single paragraph making short shrift of the two semi-recent works to deal with the subject (and in doing so, striking the tone of a review or blurb more than that of an encyclopedia), and then a paragraph about your own monograph. The focus is less on the substance of academic theory than one might hope; given your credentials, you can surely produce a more in-depth and helpful summary of this sub-field?
My concern, then, is that you are, on some level, seeking to court search engine algorithms by getting your name and the name of your monograph on Wikipedia. I don't think it's reached the level of CITESPAM, since you haven't displayed a pattern of adding your work as a reference to only tangentially related articles, and you have made an unrelated substantive edit. But please do continue to exercise your best judgment: If you are indeed Dr. Richards, I have gleaned from your online presence that you are a self-confessed entrepreneur; in which case I ask that you try to curb the entrepreneurial urge if it strikes while you are altruistically helping to build the free encyclopedia. Call me a cynic, I suppose.
As a career academic, I am sure you will understand how abundant caution about potential conflicts of interest is warranted in these cases. Please refer to the SELFCITE guideline for behavioral guidance in your situation. (I grant you, it treats the situation fairly superficially.) You were quite right to go through the articles for creation process on account of this, rather than to create your new article right out the gate; I commend you for taking this step.
In other matters, you might consider wikifying the article, and taking other stylistic and copy-editing steps.
Cordially,
§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 18:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)