Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
• Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

June 6

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ziegler & Brown

Hi there,

Can you please provide me with some guidance around how to get the below article approved?

Is the primary problem that all of the information in the Wikipedia entry is not available at the reference provided (as in, the Wikipedia entry has additional information that cannot be found at the site)?

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ziegler_%26_Brown

Any help you can give me would be great.

Thanks!110.174.10.223 (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That the article has information that cannot be found in the reference is indeed a problem. But a more basic problem is that the only reference is a primary source (Ziegler & Brown's own website), and we need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to show that the company is notable enough for an article. Furthermore, writing articles about future products is strongly discouraged; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. For these reasons I don't think Ziegler & Brown is an appropriate topic for an article - at least, not yet. If there are newspaper articles or independet reviews of these products, we can write an article based on those sources. Huon (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lucien Wang

We received the following feedback:

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

We are trying to revise, but we face some difficulties. While we incorporate some secondary material, most of the important material on Wang's life consists of primary sources, which we have accessed and referenced. The sources can be verified by a visit to the archive. Could you confirm that you do not want primary sources to be cited on Wikipedia? If this is the case, then we'll mount the article elsewhere, and give a reference to it in the Wkipedia article (effectively making it a secondary source), but this seems a strange way of proceeding.

We honesty think that the page is written in a neutral manner and does not contain opinions. Perhaps an example could be given of a phrase or paragraph which is not written in a neutral manner or which contains unsubstantiated opinions.

Thanks!

Rendun62 (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed content should not be based on primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. Please note that just hosting the material someplace else will not turn a primary source, such as a letter by or to Wang, into a secondary source. As an example, I'd point to the paragraph on Michael Liroudia. If no secondary source has commented on their relationship, this paragraph should be removed in its entirety. The same holds for the paragraph on teachers, whose only secondary source does not mention Wang at all. There seem to be various newspaper articles on Wang, enough to establish notability: Those are the sources the article's content should be based on. Huon (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adobe CreatePDF

I Create article about Adobe CreatePDF Match the Acrobat.com So I create this article. Ferry Roland 12:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Ferry Roland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandhelper (talk • contribs)

You will need to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish this product's notability. Is there anything else you need help with? Huon (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tom McEwen (sports writer)

I made major changes to this article on Saturday and resubmitted. I made changes according to each problem cited in the rejection notice It still has the same comments to change what I have changed already and it says there are 638 articles waiting ahead of it... same as it did when I first submitted it. The rejection notice said I could make changes and resubmit, but I've gotten no notice that it's been re-reviewed. Please let me know what's wrong this time Elissa McEwen (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the submission, just a huge backlog (those 600+ articles are not waiting ahead of yours; that's the total number of drafts currently submitted for review). I believe your draft is being reviewed right now. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Accepted. France3470 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Photosensitive Anodized Aluminum

Hi. I am working a new article and I have an image that is totally legal to use that I created, but I can't seem to upload it - pls help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam.wainer (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You can upload images via Special:Upload, or via the File Upload Wizard. More detailed help on uploading images is available. Your account must be four days old and you must have made at least ten edits, but you satisfy these preconditions.

If the image comes with a free license, you may instead upload it to Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Huon (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

JEWELERY

WHAT HAND SHOULD MALE WEAR WEDDING BAND AFTER SPOUSE DIES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.197.110 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tandoor Chef

Please advise - I am working to get this company profile added to Wikipedia and am requesting your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAN1979 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The references are rather weak for this company: Some are not reliable (for example the "Cooking with Coley" blog), some are primary sources (such as the press release), none provide significant coverage of the company. The very first one even condradicts the article by stating that Tandoor Chef is not a manufacturer at all but a brand of Deep Foods. Conversely, the only section which is sufficiently referenced at all is the one about the products - the "history", the "community", and the "foundation" have no reliable secondary sources, and they also sound like advertising - phrases such as "dreaming up new entrées for all to enjoy" are hardly encyclopedic. In summary, I don't think the brand's notability has been established, and even if that problem was addressed by better references, the article would have to be rewritten almost from scratch. As an aside, I don't see why an article on an NJ-based food manufacturer should contain an entire section on a barely related Indian charity. The charity may or may not be notable on its own, but unless it's a subsidiary of the food company (and not just supported by it), the details about the charity's work in Gujarat do not belong in the company article. Huon (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

June 7

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rafael Suárez

My article was declined for the second time on the basis of lack of reliable sources. Most part of it was obtained directly by me from interviewing the family of Mr. Suárez and former members of the Quinteto Contrapunto (which Suárez conducted). I have given conferences at a university level about Suárez life and participated in Venezuela's National Culture Council publication of Suárez's works.

How can I record this as reliable sources and get the article accepted? There is very little information available in English about Mr. suárez, while there are articles iabout Quinteto Comtrapunto and Mr. suárez already available in the Spanish version of Wikipedia.

Thanks, Oaquique (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Oswaldo Aquique

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not publish works of original research. The purpose of Wikipedia is to disseminate knowledge that has already been vetted and published by reliable sources, rather than to vet and publish novel information by itself. This is how we gain the trust of our readers in spite of our mostly non-expert authorship - instead of asking them to trust that we do our jobs correctly, we ask that anyone who doubts us check the cited sources themselves, and see if we got it right. It has been repeatedly determined in community discussions that even if a Wikipedia author is himself an expert in a field, we will still follow the same rules.

If reliable secondary sources exist on Mr. Suarez, or if you can get one published yourself, then we might be able to have a Wikipedia article on him. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arne Birkenstock

User Nouniquenames just deleted the article on Arne Birkenstock. Is the lack of sources the only problem? Or is there a problem with the relevance of the person? Most sources I could add are from Germany and in German language. Would I add them at the end as links?

Thanks a lot for your help! pelicula1000 Pelicula1000 (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the article was that that none of the sources provided are considered reliable independent sources. Aside from IMDB (which is not considered to demonstrate notability), you only linked to official websites to works he has been in. We need sources that are independent of himself and his associates. The deletion was performed because it is Wikipedia policy that any content on a living person with inadequate references is deleted, although it is still visible under the "history" tab of the submission. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Someguy! I could add links to relevant entries at websites such as the German Film Academy, the Documentary Association of Germany, the German Film Awards and the Crew United website for example. Also to festivals where Mr. Birkenstocks films have been running. Would that help, even though these sites are mainly in German language? pelicula1000 Pelicula1000 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

German sources are fine (the relevant guideline is WP:NOTENG), but these all sound like primary sources to me: I expect he's a member of the German Film Academy and of the Documentary Association, and the German Film Awards website would also not be independent coverage of him winning the award. Are there newspaper articles about the award, or reviews of his films? Those would be truly independent, and they could be in German, too. Huon (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I just added several external independent links to the article and hope that will work. Thanks a lot for your help!Pelicula1000 (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

WARWICK EVANS DESIGNER

New to all this. I have made four requests for clarification. My article about the Cambridge industrial designer has been knocked back due to lack of references. But, it has over a dozen references. I have asked for clarification on this point, but answer comes there none. As this has been going on for two moths now is there anyone out there who could reply with some guidance please? Not getting any replies is not good. Thank you. Jhoward2003 (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you could link directly to any sources that are available online, rather than simply linking to the publisher's website. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking directly will be difficult for 1980s articles, and it's not strictly necessary. But a link to the publisher's website is not helpful. Also, you should add footnotes so our readers will know which reference supports which part of the article. Huon (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Jonathan Waxman (physician)

My article on Jonathan Waxman has now been approved, which is great. I do want to improve the article over time but it's only meant to be a brief piece for now. To that end I really need to get rid of the weasel words banner at the top as a priority. I'm not sure what the review process is for this - it looks like I could just remove the banner while editing the article, but surely that would get the article removed? It would be very helpful if you could specifically point me to the vague phrasing that is causing the concern and let me know how the review process works for getting the article regraded etc. Many thanks. Francesca w (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Once an article is published you should stop using this help desk. The correct (general) Help desk is at WP:Helpdesk. I have removed a few obvious weasel words and left a message about the matter on the article's talk page - Talk:Jonathan Waxman (physician). Roger (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

lyrics culd be useful to make the page somewhat more intresting

cld ul plz add lyrics of songs at ur page i rly am dying to c dat in ur site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.24.130 (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless a reliable secondary source discusses the lyrics, neither should we. Besides, there might be copyright problems. It's not a question about Articles for creation, anyway. Huon (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

science/parts of the heart

how many parts does the heart have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.82.153 (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chiko Mendez

In the article I'm working on I do have a newspaper that published an article about my subject. I is in spanish, how can I use that as a reliable source? In it they reference a lot of the things I mentioned in my article. My main source is the actual person in question here, are any of my other sources usable as verifiable? Thanks for taking the time to review.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chiko Mendez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Chiko_Mendez

Luis

Windsr (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I suggest you use real footnotes for your references, but that's just a style issue. A newspaper in Spanish is indeed a reliable secondary source and can be used as such. English sources are preferable (because it's the language our readers will be most comfortable with, obviously), but not required, per WP:NOTENG. I believe it's the Nuevo Diario article linked in your draft? I'd suggest adding publication information to the bare link: Author and date, for example.

Unfortunately none of your other sources are reliable secondary sources. IMDb is not considered reliable, and all others are primary sources. As to "the person in question" as a source, that would be considered original research, and it's not verifiable for those of us who don't happen to know Mendez. There might also be a conflict of interest. Huon (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scarlett Baron

I have revised a page adding two internet sources - one that of a major university and one that of a major publishing house. The article also contains, under "Publications", a number of mainstream published works. If this is not sufficient I'd greatly appreciate guidance. Many thanks. Jpmarchant (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately those internet sources are not reliable secondary sources: The university's website on its own staff is a primary source, and so is the publisher's page about its own book. Amazon does not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required to be considered reliable. Similarly, Baron's own publications are also primary sources. What would be required are sources independent of Baron discussing her or her work - independent reviews of her articles, scholars discussing her work, maybe news articles. Half the "works" section discusses her not-yet-published book - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not discuss future events unless there are reliable secondary sources to base such discussion on. I also didn't see which of the notability criteria for academics Baron is supposed to satisfy - to me she seems not (yet) notable enough for her own article. Huon (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scottish Council on Archives

Hi,

My submission for a wiki entry dedicated to the Scottish Council on Archives was rejected due to the following: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources

Please advise what more I can do to adequately reference the information. I would like to draw your attention to the entry for an organisation called Museums Galleries Scotland - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museums_Galleries_Scotland - this organisation is the same type of organisation and uses its website as a method of referencing. Why can I not use the Scpttosh Council on Archives' website in the the same way?

Another example of a very similar organisation is the Archives and Records Association - they have a wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archives_and_Records_Association) that uses its own website as a means of reference in the same way I attempted to do.

Any help and advice gratefully received.

Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottisharchives (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Other articles with insufficient sources exist, but that's no reason to create more of them. If there is no significant coverage of this organization in reliable secondary sources, it is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. There might be some news coverage, though: Google News produced a few hits that might be promising. Huon (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Screen dimensions of a 15.6 screen laptop

You have a very thorough screen dimensions page defining verticle and horizontal dimensions of screens in many ratios. What it does not tell is how to pick the correct ratio to get to the correct height and width. Because the target screen is not at hand to measure, the ratio is also unknown. If it were at hand there would be no need to look it up on Wikipedia. 71.34.224.100 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)D.K.Campbell

You want know the height to width ratio of a particular monitor? Try the manufacturer's website or maybe the reference desk; this certainly is not a question about the Articles for creation process. Huon (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

plastic commodities

WHAT ARE THE PLASTIC COMMODITIES WHICH ARE USED IN A DAILY BASIS IN OIL REFINARIES OF ASSAM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uuanurag (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Mishari bin Saud

Since the mid-April, I have been waiting your decision over the article, Mishari bin Saud. However, today another user (Ism Schism) published this article. It is very strange. If the first article should have been reviewed, how is it possible to publish this article without any review process? Can someone answer me, thanksEgeymi (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would the article need to be reviewed? Why not just create it as you are autoconfirmed? Articles for Creation is only typically used by unregistered editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The draft had been reviewed in mid-April; it was declined at that time because the sources were considered insufficient. You have been notified of this result on your talk page. I actually don't agree with that reviewer's reasoning, but since your draft has now made its way into article space (and thanks to Worm That Turned's intervention, you are now credited as the author, too), that should be moot. The reviewer is correct, of course, in noting that additional reliable sources would help, especially if you could find more English sources. Huon (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/California ISO

I made a reference. what gives? All i wanna do is start a wiki for the California ISO. I cant really reference anything else besides its own website. WTFMATE?!

why is it so difficult to make something on wikipedia? isnt it supposed to be easy? Im wasting time trying to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Fleming (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Your reference is a primary source, which cannot be used to establish notability. If no other sources exist, the California ISO is obviously not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.

These rules exist because Wikipedia's content must be verifiable from reliable secondary sources - otherwise, every company in existence could try and write a Wikipedia article about itself based purely on their own website, which would leave us open to all kinds of bias and even falsehoods. Huon (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Quantile Framework for Mathematics

Hi,

I recently submitted this article for review and it was denied approval. I am really interested in this topic and was careful to use plenty of outside sources for the article. The reviewer said it was written as an "Advertisement." This topic is about a scientific approach to mathematical measurement and covers educational methods and concepts so I wrote it as best to describe the concept, I had no intention of writing an advertisement.

Could you please help me to correct this article or provide me with assistance in making the article sound less like an advertisement?

I appreciate your assistance with this matter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbianco84 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Many of your outside sources suffer from a range of problems. Quite a lot of them aren't actually "outside"; they are primary sources, quantile.com most obviously so. Many are useless as references because they do not support the text they are used as references for; for example, the various state department of education websites linked to in the "State Assessments" section do not even mention the Quantile Framework. Besides, I believe an organization reporting its own use of the Quantile Framework would usually also be considered a primary source, not a secondary one. Actually I don't think there's even one reliable secondary source among those references which covers the Quantile Framework in any level of detail.

To make the article sound less like an advertisement, I'd suggest to find truly independent reliable sources, for example scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals on education or possibly news coverage, and to rewrite the article based on those sources. We should also get rid of the "®", but that's a minor issue.

And while this is also unrelated to the "advertiesement" issue, the current article has a rather high level of redundancy: The "Emerging Mathematician" concept is introduced twice, the optimal Quantile difference between student and task is explained twice, and so on. Huon (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

June 8

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Guy Benveniste

What kind of references do you want? I am describing the published works of an academic and I am giving the works as references. Do you want reviews of the works? But those are not references, since I am mentioning and describing published works I am listing the works. Those should logically be the references.Nadialebon (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We want secondary sources, sources not directly affiliated with the article topic. Benveniste's own published works are primary sources, and content should not be based on such sources. It should be possible to cite some of the scholarly articles discussing his work instead of his work itself. With any luck, we could even put Benveniste's work in relation to the rest of his field, as judged by other academics. Huon (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, more secondary references can be given. But I thought giving you the secondary reference to 9 articles commenting on his work in an issue of the main journal in his field ( a journal called "Planning Theory" which I mention in my text) which is devoted to his works and highlights his importance to planning theory would be sufficient. Basically, he was one of the first writers describing the political dimensions of planning. I say so and I give you a major reference. I will add a few more.Nadialebon (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Those nine articles indeed look like a good source, but right now they are used rather indiscriminately. They are used as references for three statements, one of which is their own existence. For the other two statements I would have expected references to the specific paper which makes that point, not to the entire collection. Furthermore, the rest of that section is supported by primary sources only, as are major other parts of the article.

As an aside, you should probably use real footnotes. While that's technically only a style issue, I believe the last reviewer didn't recognize your inline references. Huon (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:TheoA/Threejs

There is a warning in the "Review waiting" box saying:

   Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Threejs (move).

Should I follow this instruction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoA (talk • contribs) 04:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the ArticlesForCreationBot already moved the page, and no further action on your part is necessary.

As an aside, that article's references need some work. Some of them are other Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Several others don't even mention three.js and do not support the statement they are used as references for, and still others are primary sources, not secondary sources. Huon (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Motley slough bridge

I do not understand the objections of the reviewer of my article. He says I need more references. I have a government document which was the application for historic location. I have a newspaper article that mentions the bridge. Is there something about the article that is controversial? If there is some particular fact that needs reinforcing, that would at least give me a direction to go.

Yipper (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the bridge appears non-notable. To establish its notability, we have to show that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources exists. I don't think the form constitutes significant coverage, and the newspaper article does not even mention the bridge's name. Also, the form pretty much says it's an example of a very common type of bridge - what makes this one significant? Huon (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Being on the National Register of Historic Places is not notable enough? I was looking at the Wikipedia article about historic places in Mississippi. I thought I could flesh out a little bit about this particular item. Yipper (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If the bridge is indeed on the National Register, it should be easy to find a reliable secondary source discussing it. None of the current sources say so. Maybe there are scholarly works specifically on the places on the National Register? Huon (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you want a reference to confirm it is on the National Register? Yipper (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be a good start. But what I really want (or more precisely: What the article needs) are reliable secondary sources discussing the bridge in some detail - more than a passing mention in an article on a decorated tree stump or some directory entry. For places on the National Register such sources should exist - but we have to find them. Huon (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added a reference to the online database lookup for the National Register. I will look for other information but I'm very skeptical that much exists. Yipper (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Symarip Pyramid

Hi,

How do I view my submissions rejection comments??

Symarip Pyramid Symarip Pyramid (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Symarip Pyramid, just as the note posted to your talk page said. In short, the draft needs more reliable secondary sources to establish the band's notability. Huon (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toni Newman

Transgender Author Toni Newman is already mentioned on Jacky Jasper's Page and Hollywoodstreetking page

Please create page for Toni D. Newman

thanks75.83.156.116 (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As the reviewers noted, you should use inline citations and footnotes so our readers can easily verify which source supports which statement of the article. But I don't think the sources currently provided suffice to establish Newman's notability. Two are clearly primary sources, the book list does not seem reliable to me - there's no indication of authorship, of editorial oversight, or anything putting it beyond a random person's list of favorite books. Huon (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Toni Newman appeared on the cover of hip hop weekly and that was the biggest seller of the magazine in 2011 selling over million copies. Jacky Jasper of Diary of a Hollywood Street King broke the story with the National Enquiere Contract and she was interviewed over 40 times about the story and took 2 lie detector tests concerning the story. If this is not notable story you should take down the site. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.156.116 (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If she's that notable, it should be easy to support the article's content by reliable secondary sources that cover her in detail. The cover story of Hip Hop Weekly may be one such source, but it's currently not even mentioned in the draft, and a search came up empty. Content should be based on reliable secondary sources; it's not enough to point out in some other place that they exist. Also, please use footnotes to clarify which source supports which part of the article. Huon (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)-

Hip Hop Weekly Magazine featured rapper/actor LL Cool J and Transgender Author Toni Newman on the cover titled LL COOL GAY? The article was written by Journalist/Celebrity Blogger Jacky Jasper of Diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com and features celebrities LL Cool J, Eddie Murphy and NYC Hot 97 DJ Mister Cee and their involvement with Transgender Toni Newman while she was a street prostitute and homeless over a decado ago. Toni Newman in her book I Rise-The Transformation of Toni Newman discusses her transformation from male to female and her struggles in beginning her transformation with no support. Toni Newman is a 1985 graduate of Wake Forest University with BA degree and currently studying Law. Before beginning her transformation Toni was a male fitness model who appeared in fitness magazines, male calendars, Playgirl Magazine and was a member of the Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity.

—here are reliable sources with a copy of the four page national enquirer contract signed by Toni Newman Here is also cover of the June 22 Hip Hop Weekly Magazine written by Jacky Jasper of Diary of a Hollywood Street King 1)http://m.perezhilton.com/46153/show/71ac3f7a4f56e597ef429f9fc6bf5404&t=8108982ab51369886cf4a7cfae4d43c6 2)http://igossip.com/jacky-jasper-lands-hip-hop-weekly-cover 3)http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com/ll-cool-shuts-down-tranny-expose/ 4)http://www.bet.com/news/celebrities/2011/05/03/former-transgender-prostitute-released-tell-all-book-that-allegedly-outs-celebs.html 5)http://www.prlog.org/11615287-hip-hop-weekly-magazine-features-ll-cool-and-transgender-author-toni-newman-on-ll-cool-gay-cover.html 6)http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2011/05/did-ll-cool-j-pay-a-tranny-for-sex/

I believe I'm repeating myself, but you really should use inline citations via footnotes in your draft to clarify which part of the article is supported by which reference.

I'm not overly impressed by these six links. Most of them are clearly not reliable sources: Gossip, user-submitted or self-published content, a press release. The Hip Hop Weekly article itself may or may not be significant coverage in a reliable source; these links are not. Bet.com to me seems the best of them, but it doesn't say much about Newman. If the LL Cool J affair is the only thing she's notable for (and it appears that way), per WP:BLP1E we may be better off with a short mention in his article instead of a new article on her. Huon (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The bet.com article talks about Newman and her book but the book has just been adapted into a film by Brit Film Director Keith Holland so lets wait till the film is done and maybe then you can create page about book turned into featured film. You can go to Jacky Jasper's page and create bigger mention on his page since he was the author of the Hip Hop Weekly article. “” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.156.116 (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Book I Rise-The Transformation of Toni Newman turned into feature film Heart of a Woman Directed by British Film Director Keith Holland (below you will find the imdb.com approved link to the film-notable reliable source).1

1) “”http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2187119/

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Ariel Cohen

Hello, I was told that "The content of this submission includes material that meets Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you." IM REALLY CONFUSED BY THIS. What IS missing? I think I cited everything. PLEASE HELP !!!! THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOMTOM2012 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That message refers to an old version of the article which did not yet have inline citations for major parts of its content. But there is another problem with the sources: They are almost all primary sources, articles written by Cohen or published by organizations he's affiliated with. To establish Cohen's notability we need reliable secondary sources, independent sources about Cohen or discussing his work. Furthermore, even the primary sources do not necessarily say what they are cited for. For example, the claim that Cohen warned of an upcoming war between Russian and Georgia has as its reference his EMET Advisory Board profile, which mentions no such warning. Huon (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

sir chris hoy

is there any chance that you guys could ever put a page of sir chris hoys timeline on wikipedia? because it is for a report that i have to do for school. if yous could put a page of it on here then that would make my day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.241.238 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We do have an article on Sir Chris Hoy which gives a timeline of his career. But I'd also say that a Wikipedia article should not be an acceptable source for a school project, though some of the sources given in the article may themselves be acceptable. Huon (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Transactions on Combinatorics

Dear Sir/Madam, I was surprised by the reveiwer report (see the following); it is saying that "not adequately supported by reliable sources"; Why? You may easily check the hyperlink on "Transactions on Combinatorics". In the meanwhile, my submission is as the following one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archiv_der_Mathematik Please kindly reconsider this submission. Best Regards Alireza Abdollahi Editor-in-Chief Transactions on Combinatorics

The reviewer left the following comment about this submission: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.176.161 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There are several issues here. First of all, as the journal's editor-in-chief, you are likely to have a conflict of interest, and it might be advisable not to write the article on the journal to edit yourself, but to wait until someone else does so. Secondly, the journal's own homepage is a primary source; in order to establish the journal's notability, we'd need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Since it's a very young journal with less than a single volume published, such sources may be hard to find; in such cases it's best to wait until they become available. Regarding Archiv der Mathematik: Other articles with insufficient sources may exist, but that's no reason to create more of them. Finally, the draft's text was copied verbatim from the journal homepage, a copyright violation. Therefore I have blanked it. While there are ways to use non-free content on Wikipedia (or to release the content under a free license, see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries), those are usually only applied to images, and it would be easier to rewrite the article. Huon (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Disaster and Disabilities

There has been a mistake. The user that reviewed my article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Disaster and Disabilities, said that the topics discussed have already been written about; however, I am certain that they have not. What should I do? LStough (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We already have articles on disasters and on disabilities. Especially the latter seems a good place for information on special problems faced by people with disabilities during disasters. I don't think we have an article specifically on the combination, but I don't think we need one. Furthermore, the "Schools and Disaster" section isn't about the combination anyway. As an aside, if you are L. M. Stough, the author of various of the articles referenced in that draft, you may want to have a look on our policy on conflicts of interest. Citing one's own work might be considered problematic. Huon (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that WP:WikiProject Disability might be a suitable venue to discuss the issues of this draft. Roger (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

June 9

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Think Design Magazine

Hi, Would you be so kind to explain the errors I am making with the below post? I have cited sources and have a reference list. I am not sure what I am doing wrong. thank you. Trisha

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Think_Design_Magazine&oldid=496699590

Banks200 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have tidied up the references. The {{cite web}} template requires at least two parameters, the URL (which you had) and a title (which you didn't have). Furthermore, the "group=" parameter of the <ref> tag is used to group some of the foornotes - for example if you want to distinguish references from other footnotes. Displaying those groups requires separate uses of {{Reflist}} with the appropriate parameter each, such as {{Reflist|group=note}}. I don't think that was what you wanted to do and have thus removed the "group=" parameters.

Unfortunately I don't think your references show significant coverage of the magazine. In fact, the art dinners hosted by the magazine seem more notable than the magazine itself (and the art festival reference did not mention the magazine at all), but even then significant parts of the article, such as the claim that the institutions hosting the dinners are 5-star restaurants, are not supported by the given references (the Phuket E Magazine looks like a press release on a blog and is probably not a reliable secondary source anyway). Huon (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

problems with submitting a post

I am having problems submitting the below post. It states I am not citing and referencing correctly. Can you tell me what I am doing wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Think_Design_Magazine

Banks200 (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

See above. Huon (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Question on Sporting Club Article Creation

Hi,

Please could you provide a little more information as to why my article about the City of Leeds Synchronised Swimming Club keeps getting rejected,

I have now 8 external recognised references which cite the club, including references to two other wiki pages that mention us and in addition have listed TV shows (the BBC 1 and Channel 4) along with Press Releases the club has featured on as well as our standings in the British Championships. As for notable swimmers, we had an Olympic swimmer on our books for a few years, and so have listed (with references) her placings in both Olympics she competed in.

As for notability of the club, we are unique in the Synchro world as we are the based on a feeder club system and the club represents an entire ASA region. We are the first club to do this in the UK.

I look at other speed swimming club pages on Wikipedia and their club details are extremely sparse and vague with only 1 or 2 references, so am wondering why our article has been rejected 3 times.

I have read the sporting guidelines and can't understand what guideline we are not fulfilling. Synchroleeds (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, other articles with insufficient references exist, but that's no reason to create more of them.

Many of your references are primary sources - the club's own website, the websites of organizations the club is a member of, and the like. Primary sources cannot be used to establish the club's notability; we need secondary sources for that.

Also, many of your references do not actually mention the City of Leeds Synchronized Swimming Club, for example the websites of the other synchronized swimming clubs (one of those links even gives an error message) or the BBC hair stylist's profile. In fact, I believe the only secondary source to mention the club at all is the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, and that's hardly significant coverage (in fact, it doesn't even say the club is featured by the BBC and thus does not support the statement we use it for). Furthermore, the article should be based on such sources, not just point out that they exist.

If the club is notable for its unique organization, surely someone not affiliated with the club or its parent organizations has written about that? Huon (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and detailed advice which is very informative and very helpful for me to understand the rejections. So,

ASA NE Membership - point taken we are a member

But what about

Leeds City Council Website - we operate in Leeds but are not affiliated to Leeds City Council at all

Swim21 - This is a mark of approval from an independent body of the ASA

British Swimming - We are members of the ASA but British Swimming are a federation to which the ASA belong. British swimming hold the championships.

Leeds City Page in wikipedia

John Charles Centre for Sport in wikipedia

Camelot - who run the UK National Lottery

Now this last link have a press release on their website which we are mentioned on - but its a pdf. When I try to link directly to it, wikipedia complains that its not of suitable content. Is this because its contains gaming / lottery content.

Synchroleeds (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In order: I'm not sure whether the Leeds City Council website comes with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a reliable source, and it may well be one, but the coverage is just two lines, hardly significant.

The SWIM21 Club Accreditation website does not mention the club, and the list of accredited clubs is published by ASA, which makes it once again a primary source. If the accrediting organization published a list of clubs accreditied by itself, that would still be a primary source. The list entry also isn't really significant coverage.

The British Swimming Results page, reference 14, does not mention the club, and the website of the organizers of a championship reporting the results of said championship is once again a primary source.

Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source.

A press release is usually not considered a reliable source, and if I understand the draft's paragraph correctly, City of Leeds participated in a promotion for the Camelot Group - the Camelot Group reporting on its own promotion is once again a primary source. I cannot tell without the link, but I'd expect the problem is more with the site hosting the content than with the content itself - Wikipedia has articles on lotteries, and it's not censored, but some sites which have been deemed "not reliable sources" are blacklisted to prevent promotional link spam.

In summary, even with the Leeds City Council we have at most two reliable secondary sources, both of which provide very short coverage of the club. But a Wikipedia article should be based on the coverage in reliable secondary sources, and that's currently not the case. My suggestion would be to look for more news pieces. Maybe the club's formation in 2008 was worth an article, or some especially successful performance was the occasion of a report?

As an aside, you might also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest - your user name suggests you are closely affiliated with the club on which you want to write an article. Huon (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

To underline what Huon says, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which includes articles about things that are notable, not simply things that exist. The various mentions and directory listings prove that the Club exists, but they don't prove it has been widely noticed and talked about in reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Agharkar Research Institute

My new page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Agharkar_Research_Institute ) was rejected on the grounds of copyrighted material. There is a remark saying that this page can be deleted any time without further notice. However, I want to have new material on the page which hopefully will not violet any copyrights. Can I continue to edit the page? Or will the page be deleted with my new contents without even intimating me?

Thanks in advance! Atul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowani (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You can remove the remark and continue editing, but please make sure that the new content is indeed not a copyright violation. Huon (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

June 10

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrei Prychodko

Greetings. New to creating articles for Wikipedia, I have prepared a new stub article, which I have posted for review, titled, Andrei Prychodko, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrei Prychodko yet I get the message that it is not currently submitted for review. To get this article submitted for review, I would be very thankful for your help01:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpast (talk • contribs)

The article has been submitted for review; the "Article not currently submitted for review" message apparently simply hasn't been updated yet. As long as there's a "Review waiting" message and the article is categorized under "Pending AfC submissions" (the very last line), everything is ok and the article will be reviewed soon.

I saw that some of your references look a little dubius, though. Firstly, Wikipedia does not consider itself (or its non-English sister projects) a reliable source. Secondly, quite a few of your references are surprisingly old - for example I doubt Fritz Nathan's Erinnerungen aus meinem Leben, published in 1965, have anything to say about Andrei Prychodko, who was 14 at that time and not active in Europe until 1971. Fritz Nathan: Zehn Jahre Tätigkeit in St. Gallen: 1936–1946 was apparently published before Prychodko was even born. Also, quite a few of the references to websites do not mention Prychodko at all, and many others only serve to verify that some library holds one of his exhibition catalogues, which does not tell us anything about Prychodko. I'd suggest getting rid of the unreliable sources and of those that do not provide significant coverage of Prychodko and to emphasize instead those that do. Huon (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cornelius Carr

Hi,

I would be grateful if you could indicate which reference in this article isn't considered reliable. The first is a boxing record site widely used on other boxers wkipedia pages and the 2nd is a well establish regional UK newspaper.

Many thanks in advance.

John

Asturiasjohn (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Asturiasjohn

I don't know either. The newspaper article is clearly reliable. As a boxing World Champion, Carr is clearly notable enough for Wikipedia. I've accepted your article. However, the article could do with better sources, particularly for any personal information. Sionk (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

i got three rejections on my article

hello there! after my latest (third) edited version of Science Supercourse article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Science Supercourse, i truly have no clue why the article has been declined. the editor did not however give any reasons. Just to clarify, i am representing the Library of Alexandria and i was trying to post an article about one of our digital initiatives "science supercourse" (http://ssc.bibalex.org) through wikipedia to increase the visibility of this project. i am keen to get this through so please help!

thanks Bibliotheca Alexandrina (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is consistently declined because it does not demonstrate notability. On Wikipedia, it really doesn't matter how well you describe what an entity is or how well you source the fact that it exists. That's certainly necessary for an article, but if you can't show that it has received significant coverage from independent sources, then it will never have an article. Increasing the visibility of a project is NOT a good reason to be on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW you are not allowed to "represent" anything or anyone. You may only edit Wikipedia in your individual private capacity. Your username is thus also problematic. Roger (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M.T. Hla (U Tun Hla)

Dear Editors,

An hour or two ago, I submitted an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M.T. Hla (aka U Tun Hla) about a well-known late painter of Burma.

While the article was under review, I went back to do a small edit, and while doing so, suddenly found something had disappeared from my "Notes" (References) section. I tried to correct this. But before I could do this, I found that I had stumbled upon an "edit conflict" (someone else had started to edit the article also apparantly.)

I had difficulty understanding the directons for how to correct the matter. The problem of making the correction in my reference section was tricky to fix, too.

I decided to try and start all over again. I resubmitted the article. But the second time, I mistakenly entitled it differently with the "aka" not included in the title and reading as follows Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M.T. Hla (U Tun Hla). I saved this page, but when I saved it, I could not find the polished copy of the article, although the notice read that it was under "review". The deep structure of the article does turn up, however, when I push the edit button. So the article as it should read is still there, in its deep structure, and under a new title.

Thank you very much. HsayaHsaya (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The second copy of the draft had a broken HTML comment tag, and all text was interpreted as "just a comment not to be displayed". I fixed that. But I would suggest merging the two drafts' contents into one and blanking the other one (or better yet, nominating it for speedy deletion by adding {{db-user}} to the top) to save the reviewers some work.

An edit conflict happens if someone else (in your case, Citation bot) finishes his edits after you began editing, but before you want to save your edits. Help:Edit conflict gives tips on what to do in such cases. If the other party you're in conflict with is just a bot, you might ignore it and simply paste your preferred version over the bot's changes; the bot will return and re-do his fixes at a later time. But this requires caution; if there were intervening edits by other humans, they will likely not be amused if you just overwrite their edits in this fashion, so you't have to check the article's history to make sure the bot is the only one you're in conflict with. Depending on how complicated your edits were, it may be easier to simply re-add them to the article's current version. Huon (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have made the addition of missing information to second copy and so the polished draft reads now as I would like to submit it. It was a reference in the "Notes" which had mysteriously disappeared. However, there is a problem that persists. Every time the article is opened for editing, the reference disappears again. It is reference 10 in the Notes.

Here is the information that should go in for Note #10:

<ref name=ARana>{{cite book |page=58, Fig. 60 |title=Burmese Painting |author=Andrew Ranard |year=2009 |ISBN=9789749511763}}</ref>

Now I wish to delete Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M.T. Hla (aka U Tun Hla) , but I am not sure how to do it following your instructions above. May I just "blank" it out, as you say? Does "blank out" just mean go in to the editing section and erase everythng and then save it as an blank page? Thank you again. HsayaHsaya (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have taken care of the deletion nomination for you; saving a blank page is indeed considered a request for deletion if you have been the article's only editor, but by using a deletion template, admins will be notified of the page to be deleted, and it will be quicker (it's gone already).

The reference is a little strange; apparently Citation bot kept removing it. Maybe it's because your references' names are too similar (ARana vs. AR or ARanard) and the bot believed it a duplicate. I have notified the bot's operator at User talk:Citation bot#Removing a non-duplicate reference. I'll keep an eye on the draft; if the bot removes that reference again, there may be workarounds, ranging from simply renaming it (which may or may not work, depending on the exact nature of the bot's bug) to adding the reference without a name at all. I don't know which workaround would actually help, and since the bot for now stopped removing it, we cannot (and need not) test them. Huon (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be that the bot feels the reference should go directly in the text itself as the book in which the painting appears is mentioned in the text. In other words, that the text copy should read to the effect, "....Burmese Painting: A Linear and Lateral History, Fig. 60, but this painting..."

If the bot feels this is better, I will correct it. I listed the reference to the painting in the "Notes" because another painting in the book is also referenced in the "Notes", and I thought consistency of citation was better. HsayaHsaya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the bot is that smart, and it would still be a bug, but that could indeed be one possible workaround. For now I'd just wait and see what the bot operator comes up with - the bot ceased reverting you, though I don't know why. Huon (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I don't mean to take up your time, but the bot (or someone else) laid out the "Notes" and "Bibliography" in the M.T. Hla article in a very simple, clean way. I think I will try to follow this method in the future.Hsaya (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Symarip Pyramid

My article was declined twice. I do not know what I need to do next... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symarip Pyramid (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was declined only once; the "declined" template you see is still the old one. But I don't think you have addressed the reviewer's concerns - the article still shows no significan coverage in reliable secondary sources. What you have seems to be either trivial coverage (such as a listing in a book on British charts) or primary sources such as their record label or their MySpace page. Unless significant coverage in independent, reliable sources can be found, the band probably is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Ballyhannon Castle (aka Castlefergus).

Hi Wikipedia,

I have been working on my first article for Wikipedia, and have been excited at the prospect of its publication. Your most recent reply to me advises that it has been deleted because it appears to infringe copyright as being a cut and paste form http://www.ballyhannon-castle.com/history.htm

Yes it is a cut and paste of the official history of this castle as researched and prepared by local historian, Martin Breen, who undertook same for the Local Government Authority of Clare County Council, and which he also provided to the owners of this castle for posting on their site. I was publishing it on Wikipedia with Mr. Breen's assistance and support.

If you let me know what proof you need from me to establish this to your satisfaction, I will provide same immediately. If you would like Mr. Breen to post it himself, he will do so.

I had spent many days reading your editing and formatting procedures, and posting the article for approval, but I see that it seems to have been permanently deleted (or at least it is not visible in 'my contributions'). I really could not afford the same amount of time writing, editing and formatting it again, so if you could email me the full (html) text of it, I can either pass it on to Mr. Breen for him to attend to (if that is what you require), or I can at least save it on my pc until such time as you have approved its submission.

Best regards,

--CorneliusWilliam (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)CorneliusWilliam

Thank you so much for your speedy guidance on this issue, Huon. I will follow your suggestions, and hopefully get closer to my first publication! Much appreciated indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorneliusWilliam (talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The article can be undeleted if permission has been obtained, but permission to publish the text on Wikipedia will not be enough - Wikipedia is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License, and in order to use long copyrighted texts that are not covered by fair use, the texts must be released under the same license, prefereably also under the GNU Free Documentation License. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission explains the steps that need to be taken to secure the release of the text under a free license. You can also ask the deleting admin (Nyttend) to provide you with the article text (probably wiki-code, not full HTML), but until the permission has been obtained and confirmed, the text should not be put on Wikipedia, not even in userspace. Huon (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I restored the original here and added the permission template there.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrei Prychodko

Greetings, This is my second request for help as a beginner in contributing to Wikipedia. I have received useful feedback from Huon regarding the need for references to relate directly to the subject of the stub article viz: the artist, Andrei Prychodko.Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrei Prychodko At present the text refers to two galleries who influenced post war art history both of whom discovered and exhibited this artist. References relating to the history of the two galleries were included. Huon has indicated that only references applying directly to Prychodko should be listed. To apply his advice in revising references I have opened the stub article. However, when I click on "edit" the stub text appears for a mere moment and then disappears. This occurs repeatedly and I cannot access the text to continue. How can this problem be resolved? Second question: how can the stub be removed from the waiting list for review? (in order to forge it again and then re-submit it later.) Thanks for your help! Arpast (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I could not replicate the problem; the text is clearly visible to me when I try to edit the article. You might get further help at the Village pump (technical); people there know more about the technical details of Wikipedia. Does the problem occur only with the draft, or with every article you try to edit? You could (obviously) edit this page, so the problem does not seem to prevent you from editing all of Wikipedia.

Regarding the second question: I have removed the {{Afc submission}} templates from the very bottom of the article; the article is thus no longer awaiting review. Huon (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To Huon: Thank you for your very prompt reply and assistance concerning Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrei Prychodko The technical problem seems to have resolved itself. The stub text now appears and can be edited. Thank you also for your direct help in removing the article from the review waiting list. The article will be reworked according to your guidelines and resubmitted. With thanksArpast (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/3WF-Third Wave Feminism

I am the founder of 3wf what kind of sources are you looking for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.122.112 (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We require reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article - that rules out 3wf's own website. Of course the sources should also mention the article subject; otherwise we get original synthesis, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. For example, I doubt a book published in 2008 has much to say about an advocacy organization founded four years later. To me the group does not (yet) seem notable; maybe there will be news reports covering it once it has held its teach-in and strike?

You might also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. It might be better not to write the article yourself and to wait until someone not affiliated with 3wf does so. Huon (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

June 11

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Andrew Forester

Some months ago I submitted an article that was not accepted for lacking relevance and sufficient 3rd party citations.

I have since completely revised the article, following WP's published guidelines. I would like the article reevaluated, but seem unable to identify the process for accomplishing this. The article currently is listed as "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Andrew Forester."

Any direction that will lead to the publication of this subject is greatly appreciated.

mg

Tforest1 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have doubts about many of the sources. For example, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, and "markaforester.com" sounds like a primary source. Others, such as the Crimson White article or the HBTV news piece, are reliable secondary sources, but mention little beyond Forester's name - that's not really the significant coverage required to establish his notability. Furthermore, several sections have no references at all. Huon (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William A. Whitcombe

Good evening

Can you let me know the review outcome for this latest submission ?

Many thanks

Andy

68.173.2.138 (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no outcome yet; due to a massive backlog of more than 600 articles it may take some time until your article will be reviewed. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gift of the Givers Careline

I have just reverted a massive copyvio by the creator of this draft at Talk:Gift of the Givers - he/she simply copied a large chunk of content directly from the subject's website.

If anything useful does come out of this draft process I'd like to request that it be added to Gift of the Givers rather than a new separate article, because Gift of the Givers is currently a very short stub and desparately needs more properly sourced and written content. Roger (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The draft was itself a copyvio; I just blanked it. Huon (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks. Roger (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "reliable resources"

Hi,

The reviewer has requested me to provide reliable sources for the article I was trying to create. I would like to know hy aren't the one I have given unreliable? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks SriMudhraalaya (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Asha

There are several issues with the sources at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lakshmi Ramaswamy: letsdosomething.in, srimudhraalaya.com and the source on the Bharat Kalachar awardees are primary sources (maybe there's some news coverage of the awards?). Several other websites linked to, such as Sri Krishna Gana Sabha and the World Arts West festival website, do not mention Ramaswamy, while others, such as two of The Hindu articles and the Centre for Cultural Resources and Training, are reliable secondary sources, but have very, very little to say about her - hardly the significant coverage we require to establish her notability. The best source is this The Hindu article - reliable secondary source, article about our subject. The Carnatic Darbar interview may also be worthwhile, but I'm not sure whether that website is indeed reliable - does it come with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Is there editorial oversight, or are the articles just user-submitted content? Unfortunately several of the article's sections are not supported by reliable secondary sources at all. Huon (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ward Morehouse III

The information from this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ward Morehouse III comes from personal interviews and correspondence with the subject. I have known Mr. Morehouse for over twenty years and through his association have also been able to speak with his mother, Joan Marlowe, his wife Elizabeth, and his step-mother, the late Jean Dalrymple.

Stivemeister (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Stivemeister

Only published reliable sources are acceptable to establish notability and verifiability. Personal anecdotes are not acceptable at all. Roger (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Weight Lifting

The reviewer left the following comment about this submission: Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Weightlifting instead.

The topic for weightlifting is different to Weight lifting as described in both articles. Weightlifting (all one word) describes the olympic sport of weightlifting, whereas weightlifting, either hyphenated or in two separate words describes general weights training techniques which can be competitive or non competitive.

The creation of a separate article entitled weight lifting was to resolve [in so far as can be done via wikipedia] the very issue posted by the reviewer, where it is confused with the Noun that specifically describes the Olympic sport, and not the generic training principles.

Neil985 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Weight training also already exists. Roger (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Davies

Can someone help me? I dont know what is wrong with my contribution, I have added the footnotes with the tool provided... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenray1980 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the sources are not reliable: For example, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Others are primary sources, for example the Scene article written by Davies himself. Yet others are simply irrelevant: A page of Mensa on qualifying test scores cannot serve as a reference for the statement that Davies qualified when it does not mention him. All these problems should be resolved by editing. But sufficiently many independent reliable sources about Davies remain that the article should be acceptable. It is currently awaiting review; please be patient (and please have a go at the problems I outlined). Huon (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quadrant (company)

hello I have submitted a page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quadrant (company) twice and understand it was not accepted the first time but I edited what needed to be edited and resubmitted it but the reviewer wrote back the exact same thing as the first reviewer but I thought everything was fixed now I'm not really sure what the problem is with the latest revision because I fixed everything they mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsteam (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has not been reviewed again since you resubmitted it on June 5; the decline message is still the old one. There is a severe backlog of more than 600 articles awaiting review, and it may take some time until your draft gets reviewed again. Please be patient.

I also saw that quite a few of your sources are primary sources: Sources written by Quadrant itself, by organizations it's affiliated with, or by its business partners. For example, the source for the award they received in 2008 is the organization handing out the award. Content should not be based on primary sources; maybe there is some independent news coverage of that award? Quadrant's own award is sourced to a press release, and those are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions on where I would be able to find sources more up to standards for this particular subject because there is not that much available for it. Also alot are newspapers aren't they considered reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsteam (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Newspapers are indeed reliable secondary sources, but I don't think more than four of your 16 references qualify: Bloomberg, Global Business, Special Chem and Rigzone (and I'm not even sure about those - for example, the Rigzone source is definitely not a newspaper article). The others all look like primary sources to me, and that leaves multiple sections without a single secondary source. As I said, content should not be based on primary sources; if, for example, no secondary source for the award they won in 2008 can be found, we should remove it from the article.

My suggestion would be to look for more newspaper articles. Maybe some coverage on their products can be found in scientific journals on chemistry or materials science, but I don't think that's likely - researchers rarely bother with mentioning companies.

If no further sources can be found, I'd suggest shortening the article to what the secondary sources actually support. It's better to have a well-sourced stub than a longer but poorly sourced article. Huon (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Naana Frimpong

Wanted to find out how i can get a domain for creating an article,, Please. Please help me create an article on Wikipedia

Thanks in advance Adjoa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naanaf (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to use the Article wizard which explains creation of new articles step-by-step. Huon (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Brian Moore Short Story Awards

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/The Brian Moore Short Story Awards Hi, I've not been successful in getting this article approved and probably could use some help. I'm not sure even yet if I'm setting up the citations and references in the correct format and also not certain that they are acceptable, or whether I need some other types of references, like to print articles, rather than just to online content.

As I don't seem to be able to access much in print about the contest, I wonder whether citing the publication that was produced from the first annual award would be helpful. I got a bit confused then, as to how to put the reference in the text and whether to include it with the citations at the bottom of the page.

I'm also not sure I've got the tone right, though I've had no specific editorial comment on that. It's been properly challenging so far, but I don't want to give up now. The process is intriguing (if slightly confusing)and a bit of guidance would be very appreciated. I got a very kind email from an editor at the teahouse, but I don't seem to be able to send her a message at the moment as she is on and off apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preloadtitle=Review+of+%5B%5BWikipedia+talk%3AArticles+for+creation%2FThe+Brian+Moore+Short+Story+Awards%5D%5D# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debington (talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

About the reference format: The preferred format are footnotes, which are created by use of <ref></ref> tags and a {{reflist}} template at the end of the article. But that's just a style issue.

The problem with the references you currently have is not that they are online (that's easier for most of our readers who would find accessing printed newspapers from Northern Ireland, for example, rather complicated), but that most of them do not provide significant coverage of the award. The low points are the Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Colby Quarterly article which do not mention the award at all, with many others just having a single half-sentence of the type "Person X won the Brian Moore award in 200X and...". Several others look like primary or unreliable sources. The Northern Ireland Screen article, for example, says: "This year we hope the event will be bigger and more exciting than ever." I have no idea who that "we" is, but that does not sound like independent coverage. I don't think Northern Ireland Screen comes with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy necessary to be considered reliable, either, though I might be wrong there. The best reference is the CultureNorthernIreland feature, which provides much background on the award and seems published by an independent source.

My suggestion would be to look for newspaper coverage. You do have the 2004 Belfast Telegraph article, but unfortunately it is once again a primary source because the Telegraph sponsored the event and happily reports its own partnership. But since this is the most important literary award in Northern Ireland, I'm pretty sure newspapers will report every year on the contest, on the winners, and maybe on the award ceremony, even if they don't sponsor it. That would be the kind of independent sources we'd need. The publication that was produced from the first annual award, on the other hand, would definitely be a primary source. It may be worthwhile to provide bibliographical information (just as we would provide an author's bibliography), but it's not the kind of reference we should base content on.

The tone looked good to me, maybe a little too flowery at times: For example, "to shine a light on emerging writing talent in Northern Ireland" seems a complicated way to say "to promote new writers from Northern Ireland". But that can easily be fixed - better references are far more important. Huon (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

June 12

Page Blocked

[13:38] <ryanfolster> Hi my page has been blocked from publication

[13:38] <ryanfolster> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Business_Analysis_Summit_South_Africa_%28BASSA%29

[13:38] <ryanfolster> The website it refers to was written by myself and it says that it is copywrighted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.160.176.58 (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License, and in order to use long copyrighted texts that are not covered by fair use, the texts must be released under the same license, preferably also under the GNU Free Documentation License. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission explains the steps that need to be taken to secure the release of the text under a free license. When you have released the text under a free license and sent a confirming mail to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", the text can be used on Wikipedia. Otherwise we cannot accept copyrighted texts, even if you have written them yourself.

Please also have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest: If you are affiliated with that summit, it may be better not to write the article yourself but to wait until an uninvolved editor does so. Huon (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FRAGMENT RELIEVI I NIMFES NGA KOLEKSIONI ARKEOLOGJIK I ANTIKITETIT NË MUZEUN E KOSOVËS

In this paper it is about this copy cult, which is stored in one of the windows of the permanent exhibition at the Museum of Kosovo. The circumstances of his finding are not known. It is a very fragmented slab dimensions: 13x15x4, 5cm., Worked in white crystalline marble with yellow runner (according to Copy probably from Greece). Is broken by all sides, from which there remained only a small portion of the upper frame. Until three sides are raw, on the front in high relief is sculpted figure of the young woman - Nympha (Nymph), which is maintained by the upper half of the head and part of the right hand. Head, although eroded, it seems that is handled quite well, where the beautiful oval shaped face, look regular contours of the eyes. Hair also have clear shape; by twisting the few remnants of the vertex, without doubt were composed of bundles of dense wavelength, which, being divided in the middle and brushed on both sides at the height of the temporal, probably connected to nodes behind. From the left hand part of llërës raised up together with detailed palm with fingers, which held amforën on the head, with the nature of this goddess closely associated with water. The paper in general is very qualitative, but palmar which is predimensionale.         Nympha figure in Kosovo and throughout Dardania is quite rare. So far it is known that the only case we present in a fragmented altar Runjeva vote by the Kacanik, which was given to nymphs, which is engraved a nymph with amphora in his left shoulder. But it is hard to say that this plaque was sculpted just a cocoon, as usually presented three of them on plates. Especially, based on the plate by Lyncestis Heraclea (Bitola), the second half of the century, with the introduction of three nymphs standing with amphoras, of which the middle keeps one shoulder, and the two laterals are also in keeping his head with one hand, with which our specimen ikonografikisht detail is more closely, we can conclude that in our case should have been presented three nymph, no doubt dressed the same, the long double kitone compressed for generations. Our sample also kohërisht respond to this plate, as Goddess holds frizurën which relates to that of Roman empress of the second half of the second century. However, with regard vendpunimit, high quality of waste paper to present to our plate, unlike the working copy of Herakles strong provincial style, shows that the earlier we are dealing with an offense to import from a recognized center apprenticeship.The presence of this plaque along with the altar relivore PLASTIKON-epigraphic and three other epigraphic dedications of these goddess, also from the territory of Ulpiana, show their reverence in the Region, Dardan, as in other areas Illyrian, where especially from within the province of Dalmatia have more examples of relief tiles with three nymph, as well as in other Roman provinces, where a large number of tiles with this triad comes from Thrace, which together with those of Macedonia are treated under the influence of Greece. Otherwise, their cult among many Indo-European peoples, among whom were to Illyrians, is epikorike origin (domestic), and even those are epikorike own, which are identified with the Greek, meaning italic. For this reason the Roman Empire in all present many monuments dedicated to these goddess. In the end we shall say that this realization sculptural poses very valuable specimen in the gender of the relief work in stone during antiquity, not only in Kosovo but in all Dardania. Simultaneously with mermermerin quality of foreign origin, whose Provience ago should be Greek, as well as the quality of the paper, as well as other specimens in this kind of marble work, talks about Kosovo's trade links with centers of today's popular sculpture in Greece. Therefore, along with other specimens of this artistic level constitute a very precious treasure of ancient archaeological collection at the Museum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetadobruna (talk • contribs) 11:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume that's the English translation of your draft. The draft itself should be in English; you'll have to substitute the current foreign language text with the translated version. But the translation leaves much to be desired; many sentences are almost incomprehensible, and some non-English words remain. Was this a machine translation?

Furthermore, you would need reliable secondary sources; the foreign-language draft seems to give some, but it's not clear which part of the draft is supported by which reference. To clarify that, footnotes will be helpful. Huon (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Market Cross, Bury St Edmunds

Hi

Am trying to add 2 images and it says I need to be an administrator. Having read about administrators, I don't feel I need to be added. Can anyone advise how I get an image from my computer onto the Wikipedia page I'm writing? Many thanks.

K Hamilton-Jones (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:articles for creation/k. hamilton-jones

Wikipedia doesn't allow very new editors to upload images. Once you're 'autoconfirmed' you'll be far more successful! In the meantime, I'd recommend you spend your first ten edits getting your article into shape for acceptance, before adding any bells and whistles. Sionk (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery

Dear reviewer,

I would like to inquire on how i can improve the article I submitted regarding references. I have included some articles which was published in a national Philippine newspaper and a philippine network which gives it credibility. Let me know it there are some things I have to add. Thanks.

Raynald Torres — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pscs.1972 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which part of the article is based on which reference. That's not clear when you present all references at the very end. Actually I believe much of the "History" section is not supported by either of your secondary sources; if you cannot find a reference which supports that section, it should be significantly shorted, with unverifiable content removed. Huon (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mdt-fit multidisciplinary tool feedback for improving team working

Hello,

I wanted experienced editors to look at my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mdt-fit multidisciplinary tool feedback for improving team working and advice before it goes live, this is to avoid it being deleted if I do put it live.

It says there are currently 661 articles to be reviewed before mine gets reviewed. Is it possible you can give me an estimated timeline of how long you reckon it might take before somone looks at my article?

Wouls you advice me to put it up live or is it worth the wait?

Thank you

Green Cross Medical (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Expect to wait several days before your article gets reviewed but, you never know, it might be sooner than that. Looking at the article at the moment, I would say it does not show enough evidence of being a notable topic. You need to show some evidence that the topic has been widely talked about, in reliable sources that are also independent of the subject. See Wikipedia's golden rule. Sionk (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The oldest articles currently in the queue were submitted on May 31. As you noticed, the backlog is massive; please be patient.

Your draft currently does not have reliable sources. Its lone reference does not even mention MDT-FIT, and neither did the websites behind the external links I checked. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; when MDT-FIT is not expected before 2013, reliable secondary sources are unlikely to exist already.

You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; your username suggests that you are affiliated with Green Cross Medical, the organization commissioned to develop MDT-FIT. Huon (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. I am infact from Green Cross Medical, however we talk of MDT-FIT from a complete neutral point of view. I will be adding more external references where MDT-FIT is mentioned. This was a first stab and I wanted to mainly get the text on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Cross Medical (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I am in the process of editing it, will add in more external sources that mention MDT-FIT. What does one do if the issue they are writing about is 'invented' by them and there isn't other sources to refer to? I am from Green Cross Medical however I potray and unbiased, completely neutral view of MDT-FIT - would you advise me to have someone external write about it?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mdt-fit multidisciplinary tool feedback for improving team working Green Cross Medical (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If no other sources refer to the article subject but its creators, the topic is not (yet) notable enough for an article, and we should wait until secondary sources on which an article can be based have been written.

As the conflict of interest guideline explains, editing an article on your own organization's product is strongly discouraged, but not strictly forbidden. My advice would be to a) make sure that the draft closely follows secondary sources to avoid possible bias, and b) use the Articles for creation process instead of putting the draft into articlespace yourself so that an uninvolved editor can check it for neutrality. Huon (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ballyhannon Castle (aka Castlefergus)

Hi Wikipedia,

I'm not sure if the message that appears in my page is old or new, but it states 'Please cite your sources so the information can be verified - you can find what information you need to include at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_information_to_include'.

I was asked for this a few weeks ago, and the author of the history of this castle very kindly expanded on the sources so that the information can be independently verified, which I then added (and formatted correctly as references).

Would you mind checking this and let me know if the sources are now adequate, and if not, I can again revert to the historian to provide whatever more you need.

Best regards, CorneliusWilliam (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That message is still the old one; it can safely be ignored since those issues have been addressed. The references look good to me, though a few paragraphs (especially those about the castle's current status) are still unreferenced. But there's more than enough coverage to establish the castle's notability. Huon (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Huon, good to hear from you again! I think they're overworking you there in Wikiland! Thanks for clarifying this for me. As far as I can tell I've done everything needed to enable the article to go live, but it hasn't thus far. Do you know if there's anything else outstanding that is preventing/delaying that? CorneliusWilliam (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a backlog of more than 600 articles awaiting review; it will take some time. Please be patient.

I expect the draft will be accepted, but editing it for tone could not hurt. For example, "Robert Twigge’s description of the castle in the early 1900’s is of interest" is more editorializing than encyclopedic, and there are several other similarly minor points that would profit from copyediting. Huon (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geoff Sewell

This article used to be on Wikipedia, as it is, for a few years but someone removed it in 2008 and Geoff Sewell never knew why? I'm told it was originally written by a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenorsanddivas (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was proposed for deletion because it didn't show Sewell's notability. By Wikipedia's standards, a topic is notable enough for an article if significant coverage in reliable secondary sources exists. You can request undeletion of the deleted article, but unless sources are added to establish Sewell's notability, it will likely just be deleted again following a community discussion. I don't think the draft's sources are sufficient to establish Sewell's notability, either; Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, YouTube and Sewell's homepage are primary sources, and Allmusic on its own will probably not be considered significant enough. The draft should also have inline citations and footnotes so our readers can easily verify which part of the article is supported by which reference.

My advice would be to look for newspaper coverage. If his albums routinely do well in the NZ charts, there should be some reviews or articles discussing his 2009 tour.

The reviewer is also correct in noting that the draft sounds like an advertisement; statements such as "Geoff's debut album ‘Believe’ showcases Geoff’s remarkable vocal abilities" require attribution to a reliable secondary source, and "The good looking and charismatic Kiwi said, ..." is unacceptable adulation. Those examples are just from the last few lines. Huon (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

June 13

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Johnny A. McDowell

I am needing to know what is a valid reference. I have used the templates and entered links that offer information about my article and it keeps getting declined. Can someone please tell me what I'm doing wrong, or if I am in need of a different reference type. The page in question is Johnny A McDowell. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyAMcdowell (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Valid references are reliable secondary sources such as newspaper articles. Your draft's reference, a Waco Tribune-Herald article, is indeed such a source. But we require significant coverage in such sources to establish notability, and a single article in the local newspaper is usually not considered "significant coverage". Furthermore, the draft surrently has some content that's not supported by the Herald-Tribune article at all, such as the name of McDowell's wife or the horticulture degree. My suggestion would be to find more similar sources to clearly establish McDowell's notability, and to remove those parts of the draft that aren't supported by the sources. Huon (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Women's Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR)

Was wondering how to insert a box on the right hand side with summary information and a photo as you see on many pages?

Thanks! Tarajp (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Tarajp

I believe this has been resolved; you have already added an infobox. More help on infoboxes is available at Help:Infobox. If the image you want to add is non-free content, then please do not add it until your draft has been accepted; Wikipedia accepts fair use only for articles, not for drafts. Huon (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)