# Talk:Goathouse Refuge

This is a work in progress, so please bear with us while we set up the article.--Tabbboooo (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are the links to the secondary sources we've compiled so far.--Seannator (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

UNC-TV Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76sec32SgP8
NY Times Article/Slideshow
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/garden/300-cats-and-counting.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Recent N&O Article
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/12/2602247/animal-advocates-work-to-reduce.html
From Petside (inspired by NY Times article)
http://www.petside.com/article/abandoned-cats-find-shelter-goathouse-refuge

I incorporated some of these sources to the main page and set up a reflist  --MangoDango (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
If you guys are confused about how to cite sources on Wikipedia, here is a guide that I used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners_with_citation_templates --MangoDango (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I just realized this only applies to newspapers, I found a more popular one that may be easier to work with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners_without_using_templates --MangoDango (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
My mom told me it was also on the Today show, but I haven't watched it. I don't know how different the information would be on there but it goes to notability! Tinaface86 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I Found the video :) http://www.chapelhillmagazine.com/videos/siglinda-scarpa-of-goathouse-refuge-on-today-show/ --MangoDango (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay now that is awesome. Examiner is blacklisted on Wikipedia for some reason so sod that. Anyway, this looks pretty good to me, but do y'all know what's left to make it not a stub? More sources? --Seannator (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Also we had a Uruguayan give us some polishing edits :P --Seannator (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I found out why examiner is blacklisted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#Self-written_commission-paying_sites
apparently they aren't very reliable, authors get paid to write articles, and they don't go through peer reviewing. The examiner article also spelled Muci wrong! --MangoDango (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I put up two pictures- I don't know which one is better for the top picture. And I feel like you can put pictures up on other places on the page but I don't really knoooowwww so we'll see as it gets filled in or whatever you guys think. --Tinaface86 (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure we can just pick out the best cat pictures sometime lol should be the easiest bit --Seannator (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay so I've polished up the text and it's all fine and dandy, but do we have anymore pictures we'd like to/be able to post? Maybe one of Scarpa herself? --Seannator (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I think that'd be good. Can you put that up, Seannator? That'd be suhweeeeet. --Tinaface86 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

So I know some of the stuff on here is not neutral enough, but I've written pretty much all of it so if you guys could go in and check it out that'd be great. It's hard for me to be neutral about it since I LOVE IT so I'd appreciate your edits. Also, someone else needs to start writing some actual material, too. Let's get this done and up and good article statusfied. --Tinaface86 (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow! That's a lot of stuff you added! :D by the way, what else do you think we should add? I think the google doc mentioned mission but don't we already have their statement on the nonprofit template? --MangoDango (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I could probably do the adoption process i.e. how it works and talk about how people "sponsor" them --MangoDango (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be great. The Coffee Cats and all that is important! --Tinaface86 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm doing some minor edits to the existing text, but so far it looks pretty good. --Seannator (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The "place to call home" article is really really good for this stuff because it is very comprehensive. Everything it says in that article, it should say on our page, even if we get it from another source. --Tinaface86 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, MangoDango, I started the Donations page but I'll leave the other stuff we talked about to you. Do you think the mission looks good just like that? Anyone feel free to add to anything! --Tinaface86 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm I guess technically Coffee Cats and virtual cats would fall under Donations more than Adoptions, I'll work on adding those two under that section and then add another section about adoptions and sponsors --MangoDango (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Added information about donations, I will add adoption later. It may need to be looked over, I tried my best not to sound "advertisey"... --MangoDango (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking at it and trying to make it less "adversisey" as you put it. The only sentence that really stuck out was the bit about volunteering. --Seannator (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
This article definitely has a lot of really great detail, but it seems like some of the biographical information about Siglinda is unneccessary and unrelated to the Goathouse Refuge itself. I added this to the NPOV section of the talk page because some of this content in particular is very subjective. For example, what does her decorating Allen Ginzberg's belly have to do with the article at all? It is also extremely subjective to say that it was "to his great delight" and this might not meet NPOV criteria.--Mdcoope3 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think some sources seem to have different numbers in terms of how many cats the refuge can hold. I've seen 200, 250 and 300. But I think the 200 one was from 2007, so they probably expanded by then. Most of the more recent ones say 250 or 300. What number should we work with? Or should we say between 250-300? --MangoDango (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm actually...it seems only the new york times said 300, the others say 200 or 250. Maybe they were exaggerating a little? --MangoDango (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
You know I wondered about that too, when I put 250. Maybe they are up to 300 now because I couldn't really find a definitive answer there. It must change all the time, though. I'll put in a range of 200-300 just to be safe. Or should I say an average of 250? --Tinaface86 (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to change them to 300. If the Times says it, it's good enough for me. --Tinaface86 (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we should take out the number. It is important, i know, but when people read it they are always going to think there are 300 cats at the shelter. I think we should scrap it unless we can rephrase the sentence with something like, "as of april 2013" (using the date from the article) to clarify.--Tabbboooo (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I put "(number as of January 2013)" behind 300 for now. Maybe we can make a footnote instead?--Tabbboooo (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This is looking really awesome! Seannator and Tabbboooo, if you could go through what we wrote and check the neutrality from your points that'd be great. Otherwise, I might venture to say we're done, other than editing. I can't really think of anything else that needs to be put on here. Since Siglinda's art is not technically part of the actual cat sanctuary, I'm not sure it's appropriate to be mentioned here. But what do you guys think? Also, address and visiting hours at the bottom or no? --Tinaface86 (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Tina, I think all of the info is great. However, like you said, some of it is unnecessary/doesn't "technically relate". What I'm going to do is to cut some of the sections/ info I don't think is necessary, and put it into the google doc. I think it would be a good extra credit idea to create an article on Siglinda. If you want, since the info about her was written by you, I can create the article and start pasting info we dont use for goathouse onto that article page.--Tabbboooo (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


### Good progress
Overall the article seems to be well written and looks to fit the criteria for a "good article," but the picture at the bottom of the article seems out of place. Maybe if you put it in a more relevant section, it would look more put togetherJastout (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is thorough, perhaps a picture of the refuge itself would be good? She also does art sales, holds performance art shows and cooking lessons to raise money for Goathouse Refuge. You could mention the fundraising! Also, the founding section is written almost like an adventure story and less like an information piece. Another thing I would suggest is mentioning the INDY article was written by Lisa Sorg, the way it's written it first seems that Denise wrote it. (That's just a minor thing though!) Lastly, there are a few grammatical errors but not a huge amount! Overall, this article is written well and provides a wide range of information regarding Goathouse Refuge, it's great that you even got the controversy in there!--Eems.p (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I hope you helped fix any minor grammatical errors as per our teacher's instruction! lol thx y'all --Seannator (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought the article has a few NPOV issues, most noticeably in the Founding section. Also, I think there are unnecessary details in the Controversy section; I don't think we need to know the exact time and date the comments were closed, and I think the message from the INDY Web Director can be summarized into just a few words. Last, it's a minor thing, but I believe you can add a picture within the infobox at the top of the page, instead of having a picture just awkwardly floating above it. --Katerwaul (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


### To do:
-picture of refuge itself?
done 
-pictures of owner's art?
N/A
-link INDY article by Lisa Sorg or Denise?
Already clarified --MangoDango (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
-founding section has a few NPOV issues
I rewrote the entire founding section. Please let me know if it needs any work or isn't true to the original!--Tabbboooo (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
-unnecessary details in Controversy section?
i made a few minor edits...taking out the time of the comments in controversy section, etc. --Tabbboooo (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I also have rewritten and stripped down a few of the sentences in that section. If you want to compare original and revised, see "controversy edits" on the google doc. I edited the Indy Week link to look like the link in the section above (italics)--Tabbboooo (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
-shorten message from INDY
already did this through revision. section looks ok to me...if anyone disagrees, let me know and i will fix--Tabbboooo (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
-picture at top put into info box (why wasn't that already in place??)
not sure if we can have both the logo and pic in place. anybody who knows format, help?--Tabbboooo (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
UPDATE: for now I moved the image that was floating at the top to the gallery, so that the article looks more official and so that we can access the picture if we need it.--Tabbboooo (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
-and in general I've been wanting more pics and whatnot. 
I think all the pictures should be posted within the article rather than aimlessly floating haha or in the gallery. I just havent seen any wiki articles with galleries on them. I know this is difficult, as Sennator said in the email chain ("need to be able to wrap text around images"), so if anyone can help figure this out, please do. I am no help when it comes to formatting, sorry :(--Tabbboooo (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
UPDATE: I am moving the gallery to our talk page until we can figure out what to do with the images. hope this is ok? if not, you can put it back on the page.--Tabbboooo (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

good job to my project teammates for most of what you see here! --Seannator (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

including you!--Tabbboooo (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


### Other suggestions?
I added their logo into the infobox, but I think because of that we may need to move the picture of cats that's already above the infobox, I also already clarified who was the author in the INDY article. --MangoDango (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

should we put the picture at the top inside the info box or just leave the logo? can we do both? also, do you think the picture should be of the front of the place, or the inside (if we decide to include one in the info box)? also, do articles usually have a gallery? I feel like you can post multiple pictures throughout the article, like the info box format. Let me know your thoughts....--Tabbboooo (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, do you think we should take out the section on siglinda altogether? i'm going to for now. see it posted in google doc for safe keeping! does this mean i need to edit the sources section as well?--Tabbboooo (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've gone back and forth about the Siglinda thing, but it is important that we do at least a bare-bones thing about her because she isn't just like a distant person, but is there everyday working with the animals, and organizing the fundraisers (which we did talk about btw, even though our classmate must've missed it, and it is short because I didn't want to glorify her too much, again) but yeah let's go ahead and strip it down and Tabbboooo and I are going to make a second article on just her and her art and stuff. So let's make sure that we really focus on the day-to-day of the refuge, maybe even try to follow up on the Indy article's bad sources and throw that crap in there. It is a charity that does good work, so we can't take absolutely everything out that has a positive spin on the place. It's going well though! I think if we just stick to basics about Siglinda and keep editing our language we should be fine. If we ever really get reviewed. --Tinaface86 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I linked to the refuge website and facebook page in the donations section. is this appropriate?--Tabbboooo (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...I tried to re-format this so it looks like an actual gallery, let me know if you like the below version better or want to stick to the above (original) version --MangoDango (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

OOOOOOKAY I put the pics up (obviously). Does that look cool or just really really stupid?? Haha it could be either! The one might be too big but I'm don't how to fix that. Oh and if he asks, can you point out to him that I really am working from home? ;) --Tinaface86 (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The current formatting and alignment of the page including pictures looks pretty good :) --Seannator (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goathouse Refuge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pshuot (talk · contribs) 21:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I plan on reviewing the article.  I visited the Goathouse Refuge so I'm interested in this article. ----
I read the article and find that it meets the good article criteria.  The article was succinct and the pictures supported the activities of the Refuge. ----

Responding to a comment at WT:GAN about the status of this article. I will have a detailed look this evening, but from a first glance it looks like a nice article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! We really appreciate you helping us out :) --Tinaface86 (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes! thank you so much!!--Tabbboooo (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay here. My only real "Good article" concern is the neutrality, which is mostly compounded by the amount of detail in the donations section. It makes the article come across a bit promotional, although I don't think that was the intention. I can't find a similar Good or featured article to compare it too so am not sure how much is acceptable. Maybe this can be condensed somewhat and I think it would be better merged into Organisation so it is not made so prominent. Also anyone is open to apply to volunteer via the website seems out of place and is something I would expect to see in an advertisement, not an encyclopaedic article. Linking to the donation part of the shelters website is a pretty big no-no too. We have a lot of issues with businesses spamming here in order to get free advertising so editors tend to come down quite hard on little things like this. There are probably other parts that go into more detail than needed (a focus concern), particularly the adoption section. It doesn't seem necessary to detail the whole adoption process, but this is a minor concern really. AIRcorn (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback! I merged the two sections together and tried to condense them a bit. I also removed some details and tried to make sure that that section did not seem to come off as promotional. I also tried to trim down the adoption process. --MangoDango (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I do understand you're busy, but we are on a bit of a time crunch as this project is officially due on Wednesday. If you think we have achieved GA status if you would please do... whatever it is you do for that haha (even though I know we're technically still on there) and if not, specific details before Wednesday would be great, as this is for a huge chunk of our grade and since we spent about a month just waiting for someone to review our page, we have had to work much later in the semester than expected. Thanks again! I'm graduating on Saturday and this is pretty much the very last thing I have to wrap up so I'm a bit anxious as you might expect :) --Tinaface86 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
MangoDango, I think you did a good job of condensing. I just went back and read through it and I really don't see much more that we could really take out without scrapping the entire section on donations, which is an important part of the charity and explains how it is funded. It seems pretty straightforward so thanks for going through and doing that! I personally couldn't see anything else that didn't seem neutral, but since we wrote it I guess I don't really know. A lot of what we originally wrote has been cut out or changed so it should be okay. Anyway, just saying the page looks good (to me) and I appreciate you working on it! I suppose we'll just have to wait and see now! Happy finals! --Tinaface86 (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmm it seems that the article is viewed as an advertisement? I really don't know what else we could change to make it sound less promotional... --MangoDango (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah this is totally my fault. The guy that deleted the Siglinda article is all over everything now. He even put a banner on the Hunt article. I have NO idea what else we could say or not say. I mean it's already bare bones compared to what it was originally. I've asked someone for help so hopefully they can at least give us some advice. We basically have one full day left. I'm trying! --Tinaface86 (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored the good article template on the article page. I had removed it after a dubious review approved it but failed to remove the more important talk page template. The page should at some point be reassessed/re-reviewed but for now it's silly to have it exist on the GA page but omit the little icon. --RM395 (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Goathouse Refuge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130320101713/http://www.petside.com/article/abandoned-cats-find-shelter-goathouse-refuge to http://www.petside.com/article/abandoned-cats-find-shelter-goathouse-refuge
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605215130/http://www.chapelhillmagazine.com/videos/siglinda-scarpa-of-goathouse-refuge-on-today-show/ to http://www.chapelhillmagazine.com/videos/siglinda-scarpa-of-goathouse-refuge-on-today-show/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)