This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Craft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of craft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CraftWikipedia:WikiProject CraftTemplate:WikiProject CraftCraft
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsVisual arts
Latest comment: 3 hours ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Comment: Many thanks to all the editors and reviewers who have worked on this. There are perhaps some lingering issues on tone, wording and sourcing. However fundamentally the article is notable, and there is reliable sourcing for this notability. The best way to get this article into good shape, pragmatically, is to release into mainspace. Further rework by editors would be warmly appreciated ChrysGalley (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much ChrysGalley for submitting this. This is my first article, I have worked hard to bring it up to Wikipedia standard. I have looked at the grading and realise the article has a long way to go but I fear will never reach the high grading as its not an essential topic. I started the process because I felt the hobby didn't have a page and I thought for newcomers to the hobby it was important. I will continue to work on it... Thank you again. Artisannie (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Comment: This is a bit too heavy on the quotes now. Could you try to rewrite some of this in your own words as to not use as many quotes? A few relevant ones are fine. I suggest reading Scrapbooking for inspiration. MediaKyle (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Comment: This is a great start, but the article needs to have citations in every section, and the prose will need to be cleaned up to be more encyclopedic. For example, parts like "The rules are that there are no rules!" are unencyclopedic - unless, of course, you're quoting someone known for their junk journalling. I would encourage you to introduce a wider variety of sources as well, in order to really hammer home the idea that junk journalling is distinct from scrapbooking. I found this CBC article you can use. All the best, MediaKyle (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I’m the creator of this page. I posted this a few weeks ago but in another thread, so I've copied and pasted it here too.......
Sept 10th 2026......
Over the last few weeks, I've been working offline in Google Docs to carefully restructure the article, polish the prose, and fix formatting.
I have spent the last three days moving those finalized revisions onto the live page to bring it closer to a clean, encyclopedic tone. Since I shouldn't remove the top banner myself, could an independent editor take a look? If you think the writing is in a better place now, I'd really appreciate it if you could remove those cleanup templates. Thanks so much for your time! ArtisannieArtisannie (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 23 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I’m the creator of this page. Over the last few weeks, I've been working offline in Google Docs to carefully restructure the article, polish the prose, and fix formatting.
I have spent the last three days moving those finalized revisions onto the live page to bring it closer to a clean, encyclopedic tone. Since I shouldn't remove the top banner myself, could an independent editor take a look? If you think the writing is in a better place now, I'd really appreciate it if you could remove those cleanup templates. Thanks so much for your time! Artisannie (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment: Many thanks to all the editors and reviewers who have worked on this. There are perhaps some lingering issues on tone, wording and sourcing. However fundamentally the article is notable, and there is reliable sourcing for this notability. The best way to get this article into good shape, pragmatically, is to release into mainspace. Further rework by editors would be warmly appreciated ChrysGalley (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)