Talk:Festival of Light Australia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Wiki Project Tags
 |
Festival of Light Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Suggestions
Hi there! I hate when people tag 'my' articles without even bothering to try to fix the reason for the tag (wikify, advert, no-links, etc), but from my experience this article is just begging for a few different tags (which I will NOT put on it out of respect).
First off there are no links to other Wikipedia articles even elementary ones. None of these people, places or things are notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry? Does the 'UK Festival of Light' have an entry?
Second, it's a little too preoccupied with the minutiae of details of it's history. The layout needs to be more in line with Wikipedia style. For Example:
- Synopsis
- History
- Mission
- Actions
- See Also
- Links
Thirdly, it reads like an advertisement and is very 'vague' (weasel words) about what EXACTLY this group does. Do they campaign for people running for office? Do they write letters to TV stations about indecency? Are they Political or Moral or Charitable or all of these or none of these? That vagueness/advertising style will bring down the 'tag masters' with a fury on you. And having those tags will bring in lots of people to scrutinize this article.
Fourthly, because of all the mistakes made so far I can tell the main author is new to Wikipedia. So before you get in a revert war with, for instance, someone who hates FOL-AU. You would help yourself by sticking to facts (who, what, when, why, where, or how) and have linked references to those facts from 'neutral' or 'unbiased' sources like newspapers, or magazines (and not known biased publications that have an agenda). Also be prepared to see things you may not like, like any controversy this group may be embroiled in (if any), added here sooner or later. Unless it's patently untrue or defamatory, if you remove it, then YOU will be breaking the Wikibedia Code of Conduct, not those who made a 'good faith' edit.
Anyway good luck, and it is better (at least a bit) than the stub that was here before.
-
-
-
- Tiki God 00:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It looks like the current version of the article was created on February 4 by Fola Nat Pres (talk ยท contribs) who has only edited this article and one edit summary was "Pasted in text provided by David Philips (National President)". It also included changing the disambiguation text from "lobby group" to "Advocacy Group" in the article name. --Scott Davis Talk 01:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you spell bias? Is there anything in this article that's not copy-pasted from the FoL website? (I'm not, by the way, anti-FoL, just in the midst of writing an essay about the religious Right's comparative lack of success in Australia as opposed to America. This article does not give the whole story. The Mary Whitehouse tour, for instance, was not the roaring success it is described to be here - as I understand it, it was financially rather unsuccessful, did relatively little to mobilise people and was met with a number of counter-demonstrations.) 04:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
