Talk:Military Families Speak Out

message: I was asked to comment on the article. At its present state, , there are 3 primary problems. The first is the generally promotional tone. It is written too much like a press release. --don't praise the organization or person, say what they do. Don't be repetitive. Don't use words associated with emotion. Avoid using adjectives to the extent possible. Avoid vague words of quantity, like "many" or "about". Especially, avoid using stock phrases--the present version does this a good deal.
As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; The editor who added much of this content back in 2007 was clearly a representative of the group, based on their user name. It's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest , but it's relatively more difficult: one is automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.
The second problem is WP:NPOV. The article is written from the prospective of a person who might wish to support the organization, and expects the readers to be pre-disposed to the same POV. This is wrong; the tone should be that of a neutral reporter, who has learned about the association, and wishes to describe it, using a tone that would leave it unclear whether he actually supports or opposes the group's purposes. Has there been press account, or magazine accounts of the organization? If so, some have probably been supportive, and some have been critical . Include references to each, with quotes of a key phrase from one or two of them.
The third problem is referencing. The importance of the organization must be supported by references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. The routine facts about the organization must be cited also, but the organization's own description of itself can be used for routine details, but must be specifically cited. A few such places have been marked by another editor.
For example, it mentions CSPAN stories. Cite them exactly. For help in figuring out how to do so, ask a librarian. All librarians are interested in Wikipedia , even if not all of them support it.
If the question is how to proceed, the first step  DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Military Families Speak Out. 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/20141227210703/http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/product/War-Is-Not-a-Game,5324.aspx to http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/product/War-Is-Not-a-Game,5324.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified