# Talk:Reborn doll

I believe the consistent links to their sites being added by certain folks who sell reborn dolls are  linkspam. See WP:LINKSPAM. "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." See also WP:CONFLICT regarding conflict of interest: "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates."  I have removed the linkspam; none of it seemed particularly notable on its own.
Regarding references, the only reference given was a link to a 3 minute excerpt of a Channel 4 documentary. I watched it, and it didn't really serve as a good reference here; it's just the intro to the show so it doesn't really say much other than that these dolls exist. So I moved it to an External Links section and added a request for better references. I don't know how easy they are to find, though. ManekiNeko | Talk 09:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link spam.  Those who plan to add their personal sites, please read the link to Wikipedia's guidelines above. DeeKenn (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That doll in the image looks like it came from a kit.  Which is it: a newborn or reborn? DeeKenn (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a reborn baby doll

Thokok1 (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The only references listed are two vanity-press books. Neither is acceptable as reliable sources. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I altered the following troublesome phrase to reflect that the doll's age is immaterial and I put in a citation needed tag:

a reborn doll is no longer suitable as a child's play doll and it is actually illegal to purchase one under the age of 14

However, beyond a citation, the sentence is still too simplistic. To wit,

Where is it illegal?
Is it a civil or criminal violation?
Is it the child or vendor who violates the law?
Can a child legally buy a reborn doll for a parent?
How do these relate to dolls used in middle schools for training?
Unless we can pin down particulars, I believe we should remove the phrase altogether.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the phrase above because there are NO laws concerning the age of a person who buys reborn dolls.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollycollector (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC) 

This article has become an educational assignment for several students we have purposed this draft outline and changes for the article and will be updating it consistently within the next several weeks. Any suggestions will be extremely helpful. 
Edit Definition

(I think this can be edited for example I don’t know if this is the appropriate place for the ebay statement.  Also it may need a reference but I don’t know because it’s kind of a definition it might be a fact.  This is something we can talk about.)
History

(how started there is info on how started from such dolls like preemies)
Creating Reborn Dolls
Reborn Dolls Kits

(What are they, how to get them, what they cost, what you do with them)
Edit Technique	

(Article is started already with this already but I think it could be fixed up, maybe put it in prose rather than bulleted list, because I read somewhere on Wikipedia they prefer prose then lists.  Also, it may need a reference. Since this is the basic technique most the websites say similar things so it should be easy to find a reference.)
Add ons

(Article started with some add on in techniques much more can be done, and can talk about clothing here too.  They wear children’s clothes because doll clothes don’t fit.)
Collecting Reborn Dolls

Purchasing(How to get, prices)
Designer baby (can order premade, make own with kit, or artists usually customize with preferences or can even send pictures to make look like loved one)
Conventions(Conventions, and classes are held, I have two magazines that talk about conventions sponsored by Doll Reader magazine that may be useful)
Reknowned artists?(I’ve read that some artists are very well known in the reborn world, but this may need more researching and could be a questionable topic)
Doll Magazine(As stated before sponsors conventions, also can buy dolls through Doll Reader but I have info on this in the magazines, may also be online on website)
Affiliated Organizations(I saw on some Reborner websites that there seems to be organizations the reborners belong to they may be worth looking into)
Mothering Reborn Dolls

Why (This section is started but I think can be renamed and definitely expanded with more research. Reborn dolls are obviously more than just collectables and many women buy them and make them for various motives such as something many refer to as cuddle therapy, many use them after miscarriages or infant deaths and so on. They are basically being used as substitute children)
Critiques

(Besides most articles just labeling it as creepy it would be good to find what medical professionals say about using the dolls as substitute children rather than just collectables. So far I have only found a newspaper article with an interview with a psychiatrist; I suggest we try to find more)
Media Attention

Expand (I’m sure there is more than is listed and I think this needs to be edited)
Further Reading
Books (Google books, and perhaps other sources have some books, many of them are just about the technique but they also have information, I suggest getting more information from these rather than reborner websites when possible if they list similar information. Also it I think a few could be listed in this section)
References Edit (Wikipedia has also stated references need to added, we might also want to proved better references when we edit what is there)
External Links Edit and add (For example http://reborndolls.org, it seems to be the organization so may be an important website, and others)
--KayPet (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A fine plan, I am looking forward to seeing other members of your group engage in discussion and article building soon! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the general outline is fairly extensive,thanks for the work Kaylee. I'm going to start doing research on purchasing and the acutal market out there for them, maybe try and find out sales vary country to country?Angela9298 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So Glen wanted me to assign him something to work on so I told him to work on the supplies, the additions that can be made to the dolls under the reborning section, and the further reading section.  I am going to keep working a little more on history but there is not a lot there and the collecting section.  However, if you find  information please feel free to add to any section whether you think someone is working on it or not these are not rigid, and I think it will turn out better if we are all working on it together to make sure everything makes sense.  Good luck guys --KayPet (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Kaylee, i was just wondering on this bracketing for redirects to other wikipedia pages whats the rule for how many we can do because i can set a link for a lot of stuff, but i looked at a featured article and it does not utilize every link you can make. Also, dont send it in yet cause i still wanna make some more adjustments where you feel there needs to be some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpwood (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reborn_doll"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpwood (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 

I have removed copyright violations on this page here by GpWood and here by Meh40.  I think a few words here and there have been changed, but they are basically straight copy and pastes from other websites.  They did cite a reference back to the website the information was sourced from, which is good, but that doesn't make copying it directly ok. You can see on both websites that there is a copyright notice at the foot of the pages.  
Wikipedia licences its content using the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and, except where otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License.  This means that copyrighted text from other websites cannot be copied into it.  This is all explained on Wikipedia's policies here.  It's kind of long, but the basic rule is don't copy stuff straight off other websites.  
Other than this, the detailed list of the IRDA's code of ethics was probably out of place.  Fine to summarise if the article was about the IRDA, but this article isn't just about them.  And the stuff from reborndolls.biz wasn't neutrally enough phrased.  I spotted them straight off as possible copy 'n' pastes because they had been added as one large block of text in a single edit, unlike the edits around them. Also by the chatty tone and the addressing the reader directly (i.e. "you"), which isn't done on an encyclopaedia.  
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, I totally endorse it. Guys, as a rule of thumb, copy and paste is not acceptable both on Wikipedia and in any kind of college assignment! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  03:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

At this points, I'd have the following comment: (1) feel free to rewrite and restore content that was removed, once you understand the issues discussed above (2) There are statements that miss inline citations; as a rule of thumb, every sentence should have its own citation (since others can later add things between your sentences and make it confusing to know what is sourced) - see WP:CITE (3) some parts need more hyperlinks - see WP:LINKING (4) Overall, longer paragraphs are preferred to single short short sentences (5) Raw html links are not acceptable as references, they should be formatted with information like author, title and last accessed date - see CITE policy linked above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  03:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Everyone,I think the article is at a point where we need to evaluate everything we have and decide any other major points we need to add. If anyone feels we're missing out an important section let us know so we can address it. We should also start to look at the style and make sure it fits with the traditional wiki style. Thanks Kaylee for all your hard work!
Angela9298 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Kaylee, I fixed the material that needed more citations. Also, I don't know if you talked about this but the supplies section also need citings per sentence. I changed a few minor things but overall I think the article is pretty solid. If you think of anything else that needs to be done before we submit it let me know I can work on it tonight.Angela9298 (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One quick note about citations - please don't use an organisation's website or other material to support claims about that organisation. For example Discover Dolls ... is a world authority on reborning, with a reference to the Discover Dolls website. I've marked that one as dubious. Same issue with Lifelike Dolls is North America's Premiere Reborning and Sculpting Magazine, which I've also marked as dubious. Such statements require third-party references. Mindmatrix 21:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Kaylee, i was just wondering on this bracketing for redirects to other wikipedia pages whats the rule for how many we can do because i can set a link for a lot of stuff, but i looked at a featured article and it does not utilize every link you can make.  Also, dont send it in yet cause i still wanna make some more adjustments where you feel there needs to be some.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpwood (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 

I'm not entirely positive how many is appropriate, however the prof suggested more in his comments so if I find that Wikipedia has an article for something I have just been redirecting. If this is improper I'm sure we will be told and just remove the brackets. I will be sending it at 11 o'clock, that way its definitely turned in today like the syllabus says and if I do something wrong it gives me time to figure it out.  --KayPet (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reborn doll/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi! I am going to review your article.
Read the second and third paragraphs of comments I left before doing paragraph one.
One thing this article needs is a good lead.  See WP:Lead, or basically, the first section above the article (it starts with "A reborn doll is a manufactured vinyl play doll") needs to be a summary of the entire article.  Maybe put in a 0-2 sentence overview of section, depending on how long and important each is.  With an article of this length, I would aim for 3-4 good size paragraphs of summarizing in the lead.
Another issue I'm seeing is that all your sources may not be reliable.  The rules are at WP:RS.  I think you may not enjoy this part, because it looks like a lot of the sources are not allowed.  All is not lost, though, because the article is so long.  You can just remove anything that's attached to unreliable source, and the article will be shorter, but still eligible for GA status.  First, all references to stores probably have to be removed.  We can discuss these, and I'm doing this very quickly, so I may not be correct about all of them, but here's a quick rundown.  Looking at this version, so we know which number goes with which reference.  The good ones are: 3,4,5,7,15,16, maybe 17 but probably not, 20, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55.  The rest are probably a no go.  Wine & Excrement is actually a joke site.
I imagine that you're working on a deadline, and don't want to spend forever working on this article.  The fastest thing you can do is just remove every sentence that isn't backed up by the references I mentioned above.  Then move around what you have left, and put it into about 3 or 4 sections.  Write a lead that summarizes what you have left, and depending on your writing abilities, you may be good to go.  Ask any questions here, and I'll try an answer them quickly.  I might be able to help you find a couple refs if you can't find one on some important thing.  I'm going to ask for more input on reborndollhouse.com, since you've used it so many times, and if it can stay it will make it much easier.  I asked here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the input. We agree that there is a lot of info from fan sites that need to gotten rid of. My group and I are going to get going on either getting rid of unreliable information or seeing if we can find better sources to support the information.  However, I was a little with this statement "The good ones are: 3,4,5,7,15,16, maybe 17 but probably not, 20, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55.  The rest are probably a no go."  You listed one of our news sources as okay but pretty much all our other ones as unreliable. Because I was confused I took this issue to our prof, who did say that news resources were borderline but he took a look at what we used and said that he would determine them as acceptable because many are mainstream news sources, and also some are used more to illustrate such as the media section where we say that doctor Phil had a show about it and the link is set up to show the reader that Dr. Phil did in fact have a show about it and it was in the media. Lastly,  there is not much academic resources on this subject, so the news resources are about all we have to go on. Is there maybe a way we could restate the sentences so the news sources would be more acceptable? If so could you provide an example of how? Thanks you--KayPet (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to say all the news ones are OK.  Which news sources did I not list? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay sorry its probably just a misunderstanding. I was just confused when you said "but probably not, 20, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55" because those are all the news sources like abc and msnbc.Thanks again--KayPet (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you misinterpreted the statement - that comment was attached to ref 17, like so: "...maybe 17 but probably not...". I think the others were all deemed OK. Mindmatrix 22:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry.  Only 17 is iffy out of the bunch. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have made some changes, and left an outline for my group on these changes below, if you could take a look and tell me what you think that would be helpful.  Also, if I could get a verdict on the Reborn Doll House site I'm not really sure what to do with that stuff yet. I've been frequently looking at the help page you linked too but the only response so far is my teacher who is torn, because there is not really other resources that cover the fabrication and such thinks to that extent.  Thanks for your help--KayPet (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
That source is not going to get an OK, I'm pretty sure.  I just wanted to check since it's used so many times.  This NY Times article talks a bit about construction, if you want to use it.  I would remove all the reborndollhouse.com references, and do whatever kind of paragraph you can with the NY Times article.  - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I'll work tom on merging together different sources along with the one you've suggested to get as close as i can to the detail we have. --KayPet (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If corroborated by NYT, I think the reborndollhouse.com source could be left, as it may be useful for some readers. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's best if reborndollhouse is just used as an external link, even if the NY Times says the same thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Would the for dummies series of books be considered a reliable source? thanks--KayPet (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.  It's OK for talking about Reborn Dolls. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys,
The newspaper sources were fine.  So that being said what we have to do is go through the things that don't have a reliable and look in newspaper and other reliable sites to see if we can find anything to support it if. if not then its going to have to be deleted. Try not deleting something without making an announcement that you've looked though, just in case someone else is seeing if they can find a reliable source for it. Here's some suggestions instead of just looking for Reborn Doll as a search word or phrase look For IRDA to see if that pops up in anything.  Also the Carnegie library website provides remote access to newspaper, magazine, and other archives and databases that I have found helpful. Lastly, wait to work on anything from the doll house website I am still waiting to see if this is going to be reliable enough. Good Luck--KayPet (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I am going to delete the wine and excrement stuff because the reviewer has already said it is a hoax website and I couldn;t find anything serious about it.--KayPet (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good ref, in case you need it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay here's the deal guys. I've looked through the outline and this is what I think were safe with and what we still need to work on. 
History (good) 
Collecting 
Purchasing (good)
Associations and org

IRDA (good)
Magazines- (Doll reader good)
Conferences and Conventions (everything should be okay except for the Tiny Treasures Part still researching)
Fabrication

Types (good)
Kits (halfway okay but need to find better sources for the preemie stuff)
Supplies (I think its good)
Rebourning (I think this part is now okay)
additions(good)
care (tried to change to common knowledge, if anyone thinks it isn't,feel free to change it)
Mothering (Good)
Debate
Criticism (Good)
Benefits (good)
Media attention (Good)  --KayPet (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your posts. ;-)  It sounds like you've got everything under control.  With Good Articles, they have to be broad, but not comprehensive.  So, don't think you have to cover everything.  You guys picked well when you chose this article and not History of the family.  The size of that article would be fine for the subject of Reborn Dolls (that article should be 5-10 times larger, unfortunately for those students). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys I think I fixed the Doll Reader magazine section but the other mags are probably a no go I can't find anything on them. I've updated the outline above the Dollhouse site is a no go so i have redo's in for all those.  I'll be working on that a little later and the other stuff too.  Let me know if you find anything on anything if you don't let me know and we'll discuss deleting it.--KayPet (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the fabrication reborning part should be okay now too.--KayPet (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Same with Purchasing--KayPet (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Same with Supplies--KayPet (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I took out the reborndollhouse.com citing with the care, however I couldn't a reliable cite to support the information. I rewrote it to be self-explanitory, so I do not believe it needs any citations. If anyone disagrees, that's fine, we can take the section out. Angela9298 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't have a ref, it should probably be removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Your professor and I have been discussing the article/project here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I have found sources to support some more of the kit information and the doll types info that I will be working on later, and may be able to find something on care, but haven't looked yet. Peregrine I read the convo between you and my prof.  I am wondering if the changes I have made so far are okay? Also, besides then fixing the intro things, if the edits I have made so far are okay what else needs to be reedited? Thanks--KayPet (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What you're doing is fine.  I don't really want to get into the prose until the article is using nothing but reliable sources, since the prose will probably change.  The next thing to do is get rid of the non-reliable sources.  Looking at this version.  Sources #1, 21, 25, 26, 27, and 30 don't look reliable.  If you think they are, just explain why, here.
Ref 34 is a youtube video of a relible source, but they don't have the legal authority to put that video on youtube (basically, it's a copyright violation), so we're not allowed to link to it.  You can cite the show itself, without the youtube link.  You can use something like Template:Cite video to do so, if you can figure out the info for it.  Same thing with ref 42.
Yeah i tried to follow the link to how to properly cite the video, but im not sure if i did it correctly, if you could tell me what needs to be altered i would greatly appreciate it.--Gpwood (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It turns out it's a crazy pain in the rear.  I'll just do them myself.  The one point that you should learn is that it's almost never OK to link to YouTube.  This is one of those that is not OK. -  Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The History Page says you want to keep trying to get cite video working, but I am still a little confused about what you would like me to do.--Gpwood (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Overall, it's looking pretty good.  If you deal with the above comments, then next thing is to go through and condense all single sentence paragraphs into fewer, larger paragraphs.  Also, the mini lists like Formation, Objective, and Code of Ethics under the International Reborn Doll Artists (IRDA) section should be combined into a single paragraph.  Same with the other mini lists such as the ones under Types and Magazines.  Also, think about not having sections below Associations and organizations and Magazines and just letting those sections be the lowest level for their parts.  Basically two levels of section headers, but not three.  I'll keep looking for questions and comments. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, Im confused about what you mean by have two levels of section headers, do you want me to combine the magazines into one whole paragraph? --Gpwood (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, make sure all the refs that go with a magazine indicate that they are associated with a magazine.  The Catherine Read ones, for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Peregrine Fisher i have no idea where your posting your comments to my question, i see your typing something because the history page shows me your edits, but i can not find what you are saying.  Im pretty confused at this point with what im supposed to do and hopefully you can help my naiveness. Below are the examples I am referring too. Thanks again
(cur) (prev)  22:20, 25 July 2009 Peregrine Fisher (talk | contribs) (32,321 bytes) (good enough) (undo)
(cur) (prev)  22:19, 25 July 2009 Peregrine Fisher (talk | contribs) (32,257 bytes) (getting there) (undo) --Gpwood (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


### Video Citing
I am still confused at what needs to be done for the youtubes i see in the history section your asking to still cite the other video, however i do not know which one you mean. Im referring to this comment 22:43, 25 July 2009 Peregrine Fisher (talk | contribs) (32,454 bytes) (→Media attention: cite video for other youtube video) (undo) --Gpwood (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I did both of them for you.diff  There were two references to YouTube videos.  Basically, don't link to YouTube videos.  Just say what show they're from.  I can go into more detail if you want, but they're both done now.  I would work on the other stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles. Many of existing section are are missing ilinks.
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
Avoid contractions, ex.aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
This article has few images. You can search for relevant images on Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository, browse through commons:Category:Dolls or other categories and gallery pages you think may be of use. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that thread was getting confusing to me too.  I'll start over.  In the future, only make your comments after the other person's comments, so it's less confusing.
I answered you Cite Video comments in the above thread.  Hopefully it makes sense.
As far as the section header levels go, "2 Collecting reborn dolls" is the first level, "2.3 Magazines" is the second level, and "2.3.1 Lifelike Dolls" is the third level.  I think I accidentally called that the second level, above.  Sorry.  I removed one of the third level headings to show you what I mean.[1]  Basically, I removed the "International Reborn Doll Artists (IRDA)" header, so there isn't a level below the "Associations and organizations" header anymore.
Ask any more questions below this line.  Sorry again for the confusion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Types should be good now --KayPet (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The mini-list in types should be converted into a paragraph. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
yeah sorry that was my mess up I actually forgot to save the page so it never saved my changes but I got it now whoop --KayPet (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Starting to look a lot better.  The sections "Conferences and conventions", "Fabrication", "Reborning", "Criticism", and "Media attention" need to be converted into normal paragraph form. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this article is almost done as far as referencing, so I'll take a look at some of the prose.  I'll leave the WP:Lead alone until we're done with the body.
Starting with history.
Reborners needs to be defined in the body before you use it.

It still needs to be defined in the body even if its defined in the lead?--KayPet (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
"Reborners say their hobby began in the United States in the early 1990s."  This is a direct copy-paste from the source article.[2]  Some might even call it Plagiarism (Yikes!).
I'll stop the prose check for a bit. ;-)  The next thing you guys have to do is go through and make sure that you're putting stuff in your own words.  Tell me when you've made sure it's all your own words. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Angela were working on the article at the same time and the beginning part got messed up, I don't know if your still working on it so I'm going to wait a second to see if you catch it then I'm going to try to fix it --KayPet (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed that. I'm going to start writing the lead but I'll write it off of here and then try to do it all at once. You can work on it I'll post the lead in about 20 minutes. Angela9298 (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Peregrine Fisher, The "lead" we had was just a definition of a reborn doll. I'm doing the summary of the article and writing the full lead now but I was wondering if I should leave that defintion in there. Also, we had "reborners" defined there as well. Should that be in the body instead? We will be working on the prose tonight. Thanks for all of your help! Angela9298 (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think stating it in the lead is way to go.  Generally, the lead should not contain anything that isn't in the body, but I think that does not apply to definitions.  My bad. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey Angela when you just copy and past the quick reference thing make sure you have a / after like this ref name="ABC"/ instead of this ref name="ABC"--KayPet (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Peregrine, I have condensed everything into paragraphs and after looking it over from what I recall everything should be in our own words. I have not gone through each paragraph in detail for the prose, but will be working intensively on it again after work tomorrow. I took a look at the picture, but I was thinking that because their are already 2 pics of whole babies it would maybe be nice if we could get a picture of a taken apart doll like in kit form. Any suggestion of where we could find legal pics like this. Any other helpful hints too? Besides taking a closer look at prose now I'm not sure where to go. Once again thanks for all your help.--KayPet (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's looking great.  Make sure that when I go over the prose, I don't find any copy/pasting and it's all in your own words, and if the prose flows well (we'll work on it if it doesn't), you'll have a GA.
In general, you can look for images with the correct licensing using Google's advanced image search.  Google has a feature to look for images with the correct licensing.  Here's a search for "reborn doll", unfortunately, all it finds are pics of that doll I linked to previously.
What I recommend in this case is to email http://www.donnaleeoriginals.com/ , since they uploaded File:Emmaline.jpg.  I would ask them to upload more photos of whatever it is you want, since they seem to know to do it already.  I would mention how you're working on the Reborn article for a class, and all that.  We can only use pics of dolls that are actually sculpted by the photographer, for obscure legal reasons, and Donna Lee is just such a sculptor.  Try and get as many images as you can, because I'm having my doubts about whether File:Real Looking Reborn Doll.jpg actually meets our rules.  (I'm sure your starting to see that we have a lot of rules.  Images probably have the most and the strictest!)   - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The website has been e-mailed for permission.  Thanks for the advice and I'll be going through prose tonight.--KayPet (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
If they reply, ask them if they would send an email from their official donnaleeoriginals.com email address to permissions-commonswikimedia.org confirming that they are the ones uploading the images, and it isn't some random person pretending to be them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
They responded and they said they can have a whole lot of images of dolls and kits sent to me by tomorrow.  I e-mailed them your instructions,  but am unclear myself as to what it means. So will they have to upload the images onto wikipedia.  Sorry, I tried the whole uploading an image thing once and failed miserably so I just want to make sure this gets done right.  Should they understand the directions? I assumed they would since they already have an image on wikipedia already, but also told them if they didn't that I'd find out how do it from you. Thanks--KayPet (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It can be a real pain.  These images actually go to wikimedia commons.  The image they already uploaded is actually at commons here, it just seems like it's on wikipedia.  (Confusing, I'm sure)  We've got a few options.  If they remember how they uploaded that other one, they can just upload the rest of them the same way.  Otherwise, they can email them to you or me (pfisher (at) gmail (dot) com), filling out this form and including it in their email, and we can worry about the next step after that.  You can just past this form into your email.  Hopefully they can figure it out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail with that information, and am waiting for a response.  I have also gone through each paragraph checking for spelling and repetitions like my prof suggested, and making sure nothing is copied from a source. As I said before I think everything is in our own words but I've made some minor changes just in case. Embarrassingly, grammar is not my forte, but I have tried to look it over the best I can. Besides waiting to here from Angela to see if the lead is finished, with all the confusion yesterday, and waiting for a reply for the pics I'm not sure what else is needed unless I'm still not understanding how to correct the prose.  Just let me know what else needs to be done. I'll be checking frequently because I know its getting down to the wire t get it finished up.  As always thanks you are a great help.--KayPet (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll continue the review soon.  When is the deadline? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You'd have to ask my prof when the exact deadline.  While our grade is based on what class our article gets put in. He also reviews our article and our work individually and I'm not sure when he plans to do this.  I can tell you that the class ends Thursday.  However, I myself have 2 finals this week also, and will have trouble dedicating as much time after tomorrow.  If were that close to getting a good article though I'm going to really try to do what I can to focus on this too. I am free all of tonight though and should be pretty free all of tomorrow afternoon.--KayPet (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to look for more images to add but haven't been able to find any in the commons. Kaylee, I know you're good at finding things, any luck? :) Angela9298 (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This flickr user has some reborn doll pics that have the correct licensing.  If you need help with uploading, just ask.  Or link to the one you want here, and I can upload it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Anytime I try and save the lead it's not saving correctly so I think someone else is also working on the article. I'll try saving it again in the morning, but I just wanted to let you all know the lead is written so someone doesn't have to rewrite it. I'll be sure to post it early so it can be revised. Angela9298 (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If your talking about the red citing things then I explained up above why. But, i think I'm going to bed too and we can work more tomorrow--KayPet (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I spot checked for copy/pasting and it looks pretty good.  I'm going to skip the lead for now, in case my changes to the body force changes in the lead.  I'll do it last.  I'm going to quote parts of the article, and then make a comment.  If you have questions, or have fixed an item, put an "OK" or "Done" or a {{done}} (creates a checkmark) below the comment.  Put a colon in front of your "OK" or whatever so that the indentation will make it easy to see your comments vs. my comments, and also sign each one with the four tildes.
"collectors, artists, and manufactures" spelling

Quick question here. Do you mean throughout the whole thing or just the beginning because I can't seem to find where it is misspelled --KayPet (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done Actually I think I see but make sure--KayPet (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"realism" is used in quick succession in the History section.  Try and mix it up with some other word.

 Done--KayPet (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"However, the market quickly reached " "However" not needed.

 Done--KayPet (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Mass media coverage has helped to develop the phenomenon to other countries, primarily Britain and Australia and reaching Canada, the rest of Europe, Africa and Latin America." This sentence sounds funny.

 Done--KayPet (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"have also caught on to the trend" Maybe "have also taken advantage of the trend"

 Done I agree that sounds better--KayPet (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"This has allowed reborners to invent new techniques causing the dolls to become increasingly realistic over time." Why have the products allowed this?  Short explanation, if the source provides it, otherwise don't worry about it.
More coming soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"These institutions include magazines, and associations and organizations. These institutions also hold and sponsor conferences and conventions." Maybe "These institutions include magazines, and associations and organizations which sponsor conferences and conventions."

 Done Again agreed I have a bad habit of being too wordy sometimes. Thanks--KayPet (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"but can sell anywhere from hundreds to thousands" -> "but they can sell anywhere from hundreds to thousands"

 Done--KayPet (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"uses colored sand for weight that could seep in the vinyl" -> "uses colored sand for weight that seeped into the vinyl."

 Done--KayPet (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"The type of material used to weight the reborn is important as some ruin the vinyl over time." This should fit better with the previous sentence that also talks about the sand.

It was separated because I was actually not talking about turning the baby blue but that some materials will break down the vynal overtime when in direct contact. Would something like this sound better- "The type of material used to weight the reborn should be considered because some materials so not react well with vynal and will cause it to deteriorate."  This would also take care of the problem below the next one? Let me know what you think.--KayPet (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done--KayPet (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. "so" -> "do" - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"The doll should not be shiny."  Did the source say why?

 Done--KayPet (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
" The type of material used to weight the reborn is important as some ruin the vinyl over time.[12] The doll should not be shiny.[12] The parts used are important" Repetitive use of "important"

 Done--KayPet (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"quality material used" sounds funny

 Done--KayPet (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
More to come. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"At times having the original body retains the dolls value." Unclear.  See next comment.

 Done--KayPet (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The "Fabrication" section may go better before the "Collecting" section.  It would make the "Purchasing" part easier to understand, anyways.  I haven't decided, but you may want to think about how best to order the sections so that the article is always building on its previous knowledge.  If you have a good idea, mention it here so we can discuss it.

I would definitely not be opposed to this. I changed and reconsidered the structure many times. My logic at first was that you buy a doll before you create one. That's why I put the collecting and purchasing parts before fabrication, but now that the article is coming together, I think it could be advantageous to switch it because the fabrication parts introduce a lot about the doll that you would probably want to know before buying it.--KayPet (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, why don't we just switch the collecting and fabrications sections.  It will prevent confusion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done--KayPet (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Eye brand,size, fitting" Spacing.

 Done--KayPet (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"The type of paint used for coloring and whether the coloring is realistic" Repetitive.

 Done--KayPet (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"(veins etc)" Period?

 Done--KayPet (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"hair are determinants that may raise or lower the quality." "determinants" is awkward.

Would this be better? "The material and technique used in applying the hair may determine higher or lower quality"?--KayPet (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
How about "The material and technique used in applying the hair may determine the quality"
 Done--KayPet (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"The nose should be correctly opened" "open"?

 Done
"January 21, 2005. [7]The" Spacing.

 Done--KayPet (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"offer continued education as a means for others to improve their skills" Maybe "offer education on how to improve ones skills"

 Done--KayPet (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"They offer tutorial skill building information and instructions regularly so reborners " Maybe "They offer skill building tutorials and instruction so reborners"

 Done--KayPet (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"describing their dolls in order to appropriate credit fairly" "appropriate" sounds funny.

Maybe "in order to divide credit fairly"? or "so credit is divided fairly"--KayPet (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done--KayPet (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Doll Reader magazine has been an informative source on the trends of modern doll collecting for over twenty five years. [13]" Spacing, also it sounds like an advertisement.  The solution is to say "According to (whoever), Doll Reader magazine..."  Finally, the magazine section is too short to stand alone.  Merge it into "Associations and organizations" or something, possibly changing that sections name.
More to come. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"In the mid 1990's it began being published nine times a year."  See Active voice.  I'm not going to go through this whole article looking for the passive voice, but if you go to grad school or get a job writing, you'll want to learn to write in the active voice.
"The First Annual International Reborn Doll Artists Conference was held in Orlando, Florida on January 21-23, 2005 in conjunction with IDEX The Annual Debut of the World's Finest Collectibles. IDEX Premiere January 21-23, 2005, 14th Annual Event ExpoCenter at the Orlando Centroplex." Confusing.  Needs rewording.

 Done Editing error in combingin and rewording sentences they said the same thing so I just deleted the repeat--KayPet (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the first half of the "Conferences and conventions" paragraph is a mess.  It needs to be copyedited for flow, and so it makes more sense.  The second half is pretty good.

I might have fixed it with the deletion. let me know if its still confusing--KayPet (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"ABC News was also in St. Louis Montana"  Never heard of that town. 

 Done Wow I feel like an idiot, hopefully I did that one late at night so i have an excuse ;)--KayPet (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"In January 2006 in Las Vegas, Nevada, Doll Reader magazine" "magazine" doesn't need to be wikilinked.  It isn't the first use, and we all know what it means.

 Done--KayPet (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Reborn dolls can be found at general doll conventions as well. Reborn doll creators use these shows to introduce their product to new consumers." Needs a ref, or you can just remove it.

I might have to delete the second part, but NYT said something about the dolls being found at what he called fairs, I thought this might be what he meant but if you think its pushing it I'll just delete it.--KayPet (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)I took it out...I know I had a source for it but I can't find it now, I'll look for a source for the first part of it Angela9298 (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done if you find your source you can change it if you want Angela but if not the NYT article covers it so we should be okay.--KayPet (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
If in doubt, stick to the original wording. If NYT used "fair", let's use "fair" in your sentence instead of a "general doll convention" - and we can all collectively sigh at how people, including journalists and yes, academics, are too often annoyingly imprecise :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"manufactured play vinyl doll, the necessary tools and supplies, all of which can be purchased separately" Maybe "manufactured play vinyl doll and the necessary tools and supplies, all of which can be purchased separately"

 Done
More to come. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"usually using a photograph to replicate the physical characteristics of a child lost as an infant."  Sounds funny.  Not sure what to do.  Fix it if you can, or just leave it.

what if we just took out "the physical characteristics of"?--KayPet (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, or maybe "usually using a photograph to replicate the appearance of a child lost as an infant." Up to you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done I just took took out "the physical characteristics of" because the beginning of the sentence used the word appearance so it was really redundant.--KayPet (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Dolls vary by size, sculpt, and the material they are made of making some more desirable or popular than others." How about "Dolls vary by size, shape, materials, making some more desirable or popular than others."

 Done--KayPet (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"JC Toys Berenguer Babies are known" either "is known" or lower case "babies"

 Done--KayPet (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"closely resemble human babies in their realistic expressions" "realistic" not needed.

 Done--KayPet (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"materials used on the outer surfaces of the doll" Maybe "surface materials"?

 Done--KayPet (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"The affordable price and already lifelike qualities make them ideal and easy for reborning"  Sounds like an ad.  Do the "According to whoever, the affordable..."
There's a bit of ad sounding sentences in the "Types" section.  "The Ashton Drake Dolls are another popular..."  "Ashton Drake also produces the popular..."  "Other popular dolls..."
The "Types" section needs some work (see Brand stuff below before making major adjustments).  We do want to summarize the industry and its important brands and products, we don't want to sound like we endorse them. The brand stuff isn't really about doll types in a general way, either.  Try and make it general, or just make the summary of the brands and whatnot shorter.  Or, move the first couple of sentences up into "Fabrication", and rename the section "Brands" or a better title if you can think of it.  Do what you think is best, I won't be too harsh about the result.  
More to come. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Doll artists are hired by doll manufacturers to become doll sculptors and design doll molds and kits." Maybe "Doll artists are hired by doll manufacturers to design doll molds and kits."

I'm not disagreeing with you but the reason I have sculptor in there is because there is a difference between a doll artist and sculptor. A person may be both, but the person who fabricates a doll is an artist while a person who make the mold of the doll is a sculptor.Maybe the sentance just doesn't make this clear let me know.--KayPet (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Artists distinguish making reborns from a kit as newborning." Distinguish it from what.

Technically if the doll is made from the beginning of the fabrication process to the end from a premade doll it is reborning.  If its made from a kit its technical term is newborning. Again maybe the sentence is unclear let me know--KayPet (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done Hopefully I fixed this I think this more understandable.--KayPet (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"When newborning from a kit the first several steps of the process are completed by reborn doll artists and kit producers. The kits come with the disassembled baby and select supplies, while other supplies can be purchased separately." This confuses me.

Part of the reborning fabrication process it already completed because the doll is already dissambled and factory paint removed and its ready just to be painted detailed microrooted and reassembled. The source doesn't support all that though I just know that from the amount of research I've done. The only part that the source supports is that the kit comes with the disassembled body and supplies. --KayPet (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Leaving it as is is fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"In 2009 they also began producing supplies, tools, and tutorial videos specifically for the reborning (or newborning)."  Maybe "In 2009 they also began producing supplies, tools, and tutorial videos specifically for reborning (or newborning)."

 Done--KayPet (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The "Kits" section is starting to mix brand stuff with what a kit is.
Brand stuff: since "Kits" and "Types" both have brand info in them, why don't you put all the brand info in one section, and the rest in a section named "Types" or whatever you think is best.  I'm going to stop commenting on the brand stuff for now, until you have it reworked, then I'll look at it again.  I'm going section by section, so you may want to look ahead and if there's more brand stuff, consider moving it.
"heat genesis paints" It would be good to wikilink this to something if we have a page on it.  If we don't, put in a short description, because our audience probably doesn't know what it is.  Same with "nose drill bits".  Actually, try and wikilink as many of the weird things in the first sentence of the "Supplies" section as possible.  Most people won't know what they are.

 Done--KayPet (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
More to come. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go through this quickly, so you can get it mostly done in the time you have left.
Magazine section: We'll deal with this tomorrow.  It won't be that hard.
Brand stuff: Put it into one section, and just put in minimal info, and take out adjectives or say who feels that way.  Here's a quick example that may have a lot of errors.  I did it in about one minute.

According to whoever, the Ashton Drake Dolls are another option due to there realistic qualities.[19] Ashton Drake uses a trademarked -material Real-Touch Vinyl Skin vinyl for the outer skin of their dolls.[20] Almost all of the Ashton Drake Dolls are created using a theme based marketing line.[20] One line The So Truly Real line of dolls was initiated with the debut of the Welcome Home, Baby Emily in 2003, which was created by doll artist Linda Webb.[19] Ashton Drake also produces the  populartheme based collectioncalled Tiny Miracles.
Maybe more like this? "According to Kevin Titteron the Berenguer Babies  Zapf, Lee Middleton, Apple Valley, and Secrist, and Ashton Drake[8] are doll options due to their ease in transforming them into reborn. Kathryn Peck reports in JC Toys Berenguer Babies the ease comes from that fact that the dolls already resemble human babies in their expressions, bady shapes, surface materials, and other lifelike attributes. Ashton Drake uses a trademark vinyl for their outer skin. Almost all the Ashton Drake Dolls are created using a theme based marketing line. One line was created by artist Linda Webb offers both regular and "preemie" dolls. Doll manufacturers offer "preemie" sized dolls molded after premature infants. Angel Keepers Company offers a lone of clothing and accessories specifically for the smaller "preemie" dolls.  Between "preemie" and regular dolls sizes can range from 4 to 22inches."--KayPet (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This is very rough, but hopefully I've given you a clue as to what I mean.

You've got the right idea.  Just make sure you copy edit that paragraph if you're going to drop it in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done--KayPet (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The "Reborning" section looks good.  It needs a space after "umbilical cord".

 Done--KayPet (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"On a British magazine television show called Richard and Judy, psychiatrist Raj Persuad tells the host's that while mothering a real newborn baby mothers release the hormone Oxytocin which may explain a reborners attachment to the reborn doll"  Needs work.

 Done--KayPet (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Simulating the process of attaining a real child reborns" needs a comma

 Done--KayPet (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"There had been reports" had? have?

 Done--KayPet (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"even to the point where they could potentially harm their relationships" -> "to the point where they could potentially harm their relationships"

 Done--KayPet (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"changes to repulsion.Department stores" space

 Done--KayPet (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"symbolize a step within the grieving process." in not within

 Done--KayPet (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"could indicate their grief is not actually getting resolved." no actually

 Done--KayPet (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"The lifelike quality of the reborn doll risks being harmful in its absoluteness to the original." don't understand

 Done I think this might be more understandable--KayPet (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"original.[30]Ian James," space

 Done--KayPet (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"bystanders who thought a baby was actually dying were frightened" no actually

 Done--KayPet (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"pictures of the baby that were posted on the blog" no "that were"

 Done--KayPet (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"through the familiar reborn sculpt. [31]" space

 Done--KayPet (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The Dr. Phil and Richard and Judy stuff is repeated, which is weird.  Do what you think is best.

I noticed this too, but wasn't sure either because maybe its crazy logic but there was some logic behind it.  The first time its mentioned is in the debate part and I tried to highlight either the criticism or critique in the source.  The next time its mentioned is in the media coverage, and I tried to just generally state that reborns were featured on this show.  Its kind of the same thing with the ABC-20/20 stuff too. I use it as a source and in the debate section, and then talked about it in the Media section. If this is isn't proper I'll fix it. I just thought if the information was only in the debate section and people looked at the page and didn't read the whole article but just directed it to the media section they wouldn't know they the dolls were featured in these media shows too unless they also read the debate section.--KayPet (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I prefer it in just one spot, but I'll leave that decision to you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done--KayPet (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
So, worry about the magazine part tomorrow.  The Brand stuff is going to be kinda hard.  The Dr. Phil stuff should be pretty easy compared to that.  I haven't gone through the lead super hard, but I read it earlier, and I liked what I read.  We'll do that tomorrow as well.  If you can find a way to deal with what's going on here, there's probably a half hour to an hour more to do.  Then I'll pass this as a GA.  Don't get discouraged.  After coming this far, we're going to get a GA.  That's all the heavy duty stuff I'm going to do tonight, but I'll try and answer any major questions you have.  Just put them right after this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to do a bit more tonight and I'll get up early tomorrow and work more. Plus I'm home at around 4 tomorrow and have all day after that that I can work. I've already left a lot of my questions or comments under the ones you've made instead of a done, so you'll want to go down the list, I've either put a done or made a comment under pretty much everything. --KayPet (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good.  I'm West Coast (wassup!) so I'll try and answer all your questions before 4pm your time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"A reborn doll is a manufactured vinyl play doll that has been transformed in order to achieve as much realism as possible in order to resemble a life like human baby." Maybe "A reborn doll is a manufactured vinyl play doll that has been transformed to achieve as much realism as possible in order to resemble a human baby."

 Done--Gpwood (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Dolls should be carefully inspected for quality craftsmanship." Is this backed up in the body?  If it is, leave it, otherwise take it out.  It's probably there, but I didn't find it in a quick search.

--It is never said exactly but infered in the purchasing section where it is described what a buyer should look for and what to watch out for.  Should it be kept?--Gpwood (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Leave it in.  It's a pretty good way to summarize all that info in Purchasing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done----Gpwood (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"The International Reborn Doll Artists (IRDA),was" Maybe "The International Reborn Doll Artists (IRDA) group was" Note comma and word "group"  Might want to mention they're a group in the body as well.

 Done----Gpwood (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"an industry surrounding reborn dolls has emerged." "an industry for reborn dolls has developed." repetitive.

 Done----Gpwood (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Creating reborn dolls involves many steps that take time. [3]" Maybe "Creating reborn dolls involves many time consuming steps.[3]" Note space removed as well.

 Done----Gpwood (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"and adding other physical characteristics."  I don't think it's characteristics.  Not sure what it is.

 Done----Gpwood (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Different types of dolls have different characteristics that reborn artists can choose from."  Same thing, and repetitive.

 Done----Gpwood (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"that include doll parts and supplies to create their own reborn"  -> "that include the doll parts and supplies for creating their own reborn"

 Done----Gpwood (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"many" is used three times in the fourth paragraph.  Mix it up.

 Done----Gpwood (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Many supplies are needed for creation. Hair is either attached individually to the head or wigs are used.[10] In combination with external modifications, internal additions, can also be added to make the reborn more realistic."  Needs work.

 Done----Gpwood (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Some critics believe reborn dolls are harmful. Even though some believe they are harmful, others believe these dolls can help in the grieving process and help people relax." Maybe "Some critics believe reborn dolls are harmful, while others believe the dolls can help in the grieving process and with relaxation."  Also, you might say who the "Some critics" and "others" are, per WP:WEASEL.  They are listed below, so you decide

 Done--KayPet (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Because of their extreme realistic nature, reborn dolls have made news headlines."  Maybe "Because of their realistic nature, reborn dolls have been in the news."

 Done----Gpwood (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Stories varying from interest in the dolls to scandals involving the police have been reported"  Lets put a better summary in here.  I don't think there was really a "scandal".

 Done----Gpwood (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, hopefully you can make the adjustments above and in this section, and we'll be all done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything is taken care of except the magazine and the brand stuff.  Although I rewrote the types section.  I'm still unsure what to do here because like i was saying although the same manufacturers are involved they are still separate things. Reborning began without the kits. Therefore, kits are more of a response to the heightened popularity in reborning when they realized people were transforming their dolls. Its odd because while the concept overlaps in the fact that your dealing with doll parts its still different.  Also, for the magazines I was think of just putting it in with the conventions and conferences and saying something like "The magazine started publishing over twenty-five years ago. It is now published nine times a year,keeps collectors informed on trends of modern day doll collecting, and continues to sponsor the IDEX trade shows that feature reborn competitions and conventions." Let me now what you think about these two things. Thanks--KayPet (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the magazine idea.  I'm going to think about the brand stuff a bit and reply here soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Magazines are  Done--KayPet (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
OK.  I've changed my mind about creating any sort of brands section.  How about renaming "Types" into "Reborning" and "Kits" into "Newborning".  And maybe start the "Newborning" section with "If a reborn is created from a kit as opposed to a whole manufactured doll, it is called newborning."  Then maybe adjust the lead a little bit to mention the two types.  What do you think?
Also, magazine names should be in italics and the name of the article should be in quotes.  That's mostly for the ref section, but magazine names are mentioned a couple times in the article as well.
The second paragraph of the "Media attention" section needs an opening sentence that says "Reborn dolls have been featured in a number of television shows." or something similar.
Finally, the "Types" and "Kits" (or whatever we call them) sections need to be copyedited, with an eye towards grammar and making sure that each thing mentioned is explained enough.
After that, we may be done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay I took care of the Reborning and Newborning heading stuff. This forced me to change the other reborning section to process or we would have had 2 reborning headings. I chose the name process because we call it that throughout the article. I also went through all the references to fix italics and quotes. I am now going to look through the reborning and newborning sections for copyediting, if anyone from my group is looking I could use help with this part.--KayPet (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great!  Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay I've looked reborning and newborning over a dozen times, and have made several changes, hopefully making things more clear and fixing the grammar--KayPet (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing up the lead for me, I was at work all day. Kaylee do you still want help? I don't know exactly what you mean by copyediting but I can help if you explain Angela9298 (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I might have taken care of it but I'm not sure I'm still waiting to here but basically just proofing the newborning and reborning sections for grammar and clearness.  I absolutely suck at grammar so you might want to check it over too. Thanks--KayPet (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Everything was pretty good I just had a question about these sentences: "According to Kevin Titterton of Doll Reader Magazine...and Kathryn Peck reports with..." Are you directly quoting them? The beginning makes it sound like it's a direct quote but its not treated like one. I know we have to change everything into our own words it just seems a little awkward to me. -Angela9298 (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Not direct but the reviewer said to put that so it didn't sound like advertising --KayPet (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 DoneMaybe?--KayPet (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
So close.  Fix these few things, and your done.
There are still a couple of sentences that sound funky, but they aren't bad enough to prevent the GA pass.  You should still work on them.  They are:
"According to Kevin Titterton of Doll Reader Magazine; Berenguer Babies, Zapf, Lee Middleton, Ashton Drake, Apple Valley, and Secrist Dolls are options due to their ease of transforming into reborns."  "are options" sounds weird.  Also, specify that those companies are toy or doll makers.

 Done--KayPet (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"Kathryn Peck reports with JC Toys Berenguer Babies, the ease comes from the fact that the dolls already resemble human babies in their expressions, body shapes, surface materials, and other lifelike attributes."  "reports with" sounds like she works for JC Toys.  "comes from the fact that" -> "is because" 

 Done--KayPet (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"Almost all the Ashton Drake Dolls are created using a theme based marketing line."  Could you add "such as (theme example 1) and (theme example 2)  If the source doesn't say, don't worry about it.

These are the So Truly real and Tiny Miracles things I had in before that you had me take out to be more general and not sound like advertizing.
"Doll manufacturers offer "preemie" sized dolls molded after premature infants." -> ""Preemies" are smaller dolls molded after premature infants." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done--KayPet (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to pass it.  The article is well written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable, and illustrated as best as possible.
It doesn't effect the pass, but I guess what I would like is not the names So Truly real and Tiny Miracles, which doesn't tell me much, but a description of the lines.  Maybe it's a line of preemies, maybe it's a line of curly haired babies, maybe it's a line of dolls from a certain artist.  I just don't have a good idea of what a doll line is.
Anyways, great work.  When a professor (or whoever) tells you that Wikipedia is not reliable, remember the amount of work that goes into these things.  You might also tease your teacher a bit, because he's created a number of Featured Articles, and they make GA look really, really easy!  It takes a special kind of crazy smart nerd to create FAs, and apparently they let him teach your class. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Although the article got the GA status there are two things I feel should be addressed (one of them was mentioned before). First, there are not enough wikilinks. I mean, look at the lead: several long paragraphs and not a single hyperlink... Also, I wonder what's the justification for adding the article the Category:Internet culture - the article doesn't mention the word Internet at all. Either this needs to be explained in the article (with ref) or the category needs to go. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who put the Internet culture category in but I removed it. I also tried to add more wikilinks but only found about 12 more to add. I'm a little confused. Should they be anything that has a wikipage and/or things the reader might not know? If you think we should have more could you give an example of something maybe not so obvious? Thanks for the suggestions! We're still trying to improve the article and we're working having a reborn doll artist upload pictures for us. Angela9298 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
How is the picture thing coming?  Have you guys been emailing back and forth? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I should have posted something I told the prof but didn't post anything here. Angela I had already fixed the article so that the internet culture thing was okay. It was a minor edit, I just added that ebay and the nurseries artists websites created an online society which was supported by the Reuters paper, and changed a sentence in the lead from could be online to could be bought on the internet and wikilinked both. I also went through and added some wiki links myself. I think we should be okay in that area. Peregrine if these changes are no good and it was better before we can always change it back, but I don; think it makes much difference.  Also, even though in her first email she sounded ecstatic to help I have not heard back from her unfortunately so that does not seem promising as of right now. Sorry again. i hope everything is okay.--KayPet (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Everything you've been doing is great.  No need to revert.
Maybe you should email them again?  If your not going to have time, you can give them my email (pfisher (at) gmail (dot) com) and I can take over if they ever reply.  You might mention that wikipedia is one of the top google hits for Reborn doll, so it's sort of a good form of advertising for them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
She's been re-emailed with your e-mail--KayPet (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the internet culture, I didn't even think of ebay 71.60.81.189 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Peregrine I left you a message about the photos on your talk page--KayPet (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Donna-Lee-originals-Corbin (1).jpg and File:Donna-Lee-Emmaline-comparison.jpg.  Pretty cool. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool I put them up, but remember newbie so possibly errors.--KayPet (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Lookin good, baby!  I adjusted the captions.  You can revert back if you preferred your own captions.  It's probably good either way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You haven't steered me wrong yet I'll leave it like it is :)--KayPet (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, the first picture- with the doll's rear furniture sticking out, makes me uncomfortable. It just seem as though some creepy people might look at it the wrong way! ````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katystarr (talk • contribs) 01:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC) 
Yes that's true

Thokok1 (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Baby isabella.jpg
Tsoso.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)