This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
New to this Wikipedia volunteer edit past-time! I have just spent the past hour cleaning up NGO Wikipedia articles from around the world including Eurosolar, Korean Red Cross, Ashinaga and more. I honestly do not see why this 'Yidan Prize' page is flagged as an advertisement. There are literally no statements of opinion on the page - just facts. Read through it line by line. Tone is informative rather than persuasive and not in any way different to the aforementioned Wikipedia pages for other charities. The disclaimer allegations seem to be inconsistent with the other charity pages in Wikipedia and potentially unfair. Please clarify why this webpage is flagged and other extremely similar NGO pages aren't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.118.34 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is always a lot to clean up on Wikipedia, and so the state of other pages is not really relevant to the discussion here. Anyway, this article was written by a paid editor and the tone is completely inappropriate for a supposedly impartial encyclopedia. How about this sentence: "Each nomination is reviewed according to a set of rigorous criteria in order to identify the very best individuals." The article needs a lot of work and the paid editor, who did not disclose his or her COI, was acting in violation of Wikimedia Foundation TOS (Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion or corporate outreach. The COI tags are essential. Citobun (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Citobun, thanks for the reply. So just to clarify, if one were to edit this page and modify the sentence you mentioned to: "According to the organization, each nomination is reviewed according to a set of rigorous criteria in order to identify the very best indiciduals", then that would be acceptable? I just want to gain a better understanding of how these articles should be written/edited and how these organizations can redeem their pages. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.118.34 (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have made edits addressing the conflict of interest tags at the top of the page, but wanted to see if anyone had further information or input as to a reason for keeping the flags? I want to make sure there is a consensus before determining if they continue to be necessary, or if others want to work on it more? Oscar Newburg Thermidor (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They need to stay, as the article is still subject to conflict of interest editing. Please, this is not fooling anyone. Citobun (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
