Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dorasteel (talk | contribs)
100 edits
No edit summary
DJDog (talk | contribs)
118 edits
No edit summary
Line 292: Line 292:


<!-- End of message -->[[User:Dorasteel|Dorasteel]] ([[User talk:Dorasteel|talk]]) 12:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- End of message -->[[User:Dorasteel|Dorasteel]] ([[User talk:Dorasteel|talk]]) 12:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

== 13:49:22, 2 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog ==
{{Lafc|username=DJDog|ts=13:49:22, 2 November 2015|declined=Draft:VoizNoiz_3_-_Urban_Jazz_Scapes}}

Hello Sister Twister, ok my last shot: I again extended the article and added more references that I found, one from a newspaper and one from a published book.
Hope that helps ? best regards

Revision as of 13:49, 2 November 2015

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • 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.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


October 27

00:32:38, 27 October 2015 review of submission by Kaseypoet

Hello, I was told that "Most of the references for this article are its own and those of its founders.  Please provide evidence of notability in the form of independently published material in reliable secondary sources." Only 3 out of my 9 sources are its own or its founders. I can remove those sources if need be, but there are 6 reputable media sources independent of the company in my citations. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks!

Kaseypoet (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether the reviewer is correct, something I have not checked, but that you know. You may wish to talk to them over this. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaseypoet: I've formatted the references to make the sources clearer. You could carry this further by adding dates of publication. Wikipedia is looking for articles about companies that have made an enduring mark on the historical record. Ongoing coverage over a period of years can be an indicator of that, compared with a brief spike of coverage around one event.
You're best off first asking the reviewer for clarification of their comments. If I were reviewing it I would be concerned about two things. (1) The draft depends heavily on interviews with Tom. Wikipedia articles need to represent the full range of views on a subject. Interviews can be useful sources, but to count towards notability they need to include a healthy amount of arms length analysis and perspective. If they're just Tom talking about Tom (or Tom's company), then they're just the company line, are primary sources, and aren't really independent, no matter who publishes them. (2) To fulfil the notability criteria for companies, coverage specifically of the company is needed. Coverage judged to be of the founder or of a product may not count. The IFC article, for example, might help establish the notability of Tom or of Love, but doesn't even mention To the Stars by name, so a reviewer might discount that source.
If the company is still closely associated with Tom, you might be better off creating a redirect to the article about him and developing the topic there, where currently it isn't even mentioned. If at a later date its notability independent of him is clear, and the amount of information about the company justifies it, it could be spun off into its own article. Worldbruce (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:22:21, 27 October 2015 review of submission by Stewpie607

Hi,

Following a couple of rejections I am a little unsure on how I could improve the referencing in my draft article. Could you give me some examples of appropriate references or a slightly more concise detail on what type of reference is appropriate - I have read the referencing article several times but end up with the thought that it is extremely hard to reference outside of an associations literature when discussing one!

Thanks.

Stewpie607 (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you face is that the organisation may be interesting, useful, but may not pass WP:CORP.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL may be useful, or some modification to that search. Fiddle Faddle 21:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stewpie607: There's an entire project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, dedicated to all things RR, including railroad engineering and technology. If you ask at the project's talk page, someone there may be able to suggest alternative sources for the topic. Worldbruce (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

01:39:01, 28 October 2015 review of submission by RDbassK


I am creating an article for the very first time. I have many internal footnotes to add in, but I am unable to understand the instructions or mechanisms for adding them in.

The article I am working is at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_E._Kohn

Can someone please send me to plain, clear instructions on how to create the footnotes / references section?

Thank you!

RDbassK (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @RDbassK:, you are very close to getting it right; your coding is correct, but what you need to notice is that when you put material between the "ref" tags, it forms a footnote, which then displays at the end. Since right now all your "ref"-bracketed content is at the very end of the draft, all your footnotes, the little blue clickable numbers, are all just piled at the bottom of the "Writing on the fine arts" section, instead of being next to the specific fact they support which is the idea of footnotes. So if you have, for example, a newspaper article that documents that Kohn got his PhD in 1969, you need to take that reference, within its "ref" tags, and paste it at the end of the sentence. Then it will appear as a little clickable blue number at the end of the sentence, and automatically list itself under References at the bottom of the page. The guideline WP:Referencing for beginners helps explain this.
The larger issue though, works by Kohn himself are not "references". Those are primary sources, but what a reference is is a secondary source which proves a fact about Kohn. An encyclopedia is a Tertiary source, a compilation of Secondary sources organized for a reader. An encyclopedia is not breaking research based on the original raw documents (such as Kohn's own work). So there should be little/no footnotes to Kohn's own works, because there's not any doubt he wrote them, but what we do need footnotes to is articles, books, etc that discuss Kohn from an outside expert's perspective". The guideline WP:Reliable sources and WP:Secondary sources are worth a quick glance there. You simply can't publish an encyclopedia article largely cited to the subject himself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

Request on 03:04:45, 29 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tombrady33


Somehow they keep calling my article Paul Revere and the Raiders and say it exist already. This rock group does have a page already but they changed their name to THE RAIDERS in 1970 through 1973. This was the only era I was covering and the four albums which were released under the name of THE RAIDERS and wanted to link each album listed in the discography with the addition information on my page . I also must admit I need to know two other things. How to make a contents box and how to upload a picture. Also what I do not understand is how if the page is only in my sandbox and not at its finaly address so I can I link the sections of my page with the discography page listing? I did manage to complete one page for your site but I must admit I am not on top of my game due to I am 63 years old. LOL. Anyway if you can help me with any of these matters I would love to hear from you. tom brady tombrady33


Tombrady33 (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tombrady33: It seems to me that it does exist already, and that the page title you want needs to be a redirect to the main article, into which you need to merge the material you have. Splitting the two would be awkward and might be viewed as a WP:POVFORK, which is not a good thing. Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:55:50, 29 October 2015 review of submission by CVKunnumpuram


CVKunnumpuram (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is traditional to ask a question at a help desk, What is yours, please? Fiddle Faddle 08:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:39:50, 29 October 2015 review of submission by Cocainrausch


Hallo, I´m wondering why the submission "Draft:Oskar Stocker" was declined. Can you explain? What can I do?

Cocainrausch (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read this, you'll understand why your draft was declined. If you didn't understand, please ask us again. Thank you - Supdiop (T🔹C) 09:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:23:26, 29 October 2015 review of submission by Joebattimelli


Hi, Can you please give specifics about which areas need more referencing. To my mind, the issues which were brought up last time were dealt with. Any information on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

@Joebattimelli: I have analysed the references you have used on the draft itself and left you a full comment there. Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:02, 29 October 2015 review of submission by Mbriggs619

I am failing to understand how the National Funding, Inc. page I have submitted is any more "like an advertisement" than those of their competitors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnDeck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Access_Network

Please help me understand what needs to be removed or edited in my submission for it to pass your rigorous standards. Thank you. Mbriggs619 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbriggs619: No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. If you want to look for good examples instead of the three you have looked at, please study the relevant area of WP:GA and consider their referencing. I will have a look at your draft shortly and see if I can add value to the prior reviews.
Thank you for highlighting at least two articles that should probably not be here. I have flagged them for community discussion. Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have left you a full comment on the draft itself. Please do come back with any specific questions. Fiddle Faddle 17:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:48, 29 October 2015 review of submission by Tomdeva


I am writing to ask for any help at all. This is the only page I have ever worked on. It has been a labor of love. My page on architect Shoji Sadao has been rejected at least three over the past year and a half to two years. Is there any way I can make the page simpler just to get something up? Sadao is in this late 80's and significant for his work and partnerships with Buckminster Fuller and Isamu Noguchi. Thank you for any help or guidance or suggestions that you might offer.

Tomdeva (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Published. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


October 30

00:54:01, 30 October 2015 review of submission by Mabbs001


Mabbs001 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Just a query.../have I over citated/referenced the page "Raymond Sandover"[reply]

Hi Mabbs001 - No you haven't overcited. Usually two citations will suffice as a max (unless the assertion in question is highly contentious). Onel5969 TT me 20:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mabbs001: It's a matter of editorial judgement, so you'll get different answers from different editors. In my judgement, for this type of article, yes it is overcited. That's hardly the crime of the century, and has no effect on whether the draft will be approved.
  • A citation at the end of a paragraph is sufficient when every fact in the pargraph is supported by the same source or set of sources.
  • Consider adding introductory text before a stable list, each entry of which is supported by the same source, and attaching the citation to that text rather than repeating it for every entry on the list (e.g "He was promoted five times from 1941 through 1946:[5] list of five promotions").
  • Try to avoid interrupting the flow of the first few sentences with too many citations. The normal approach is to create a lede and a body, as described in Template:Biography. Then place the citations in the body. The lede is just a summary of the body, so the citations don't need to be repeated in the lede unless an exceptional claims is made or a direct quotation is used.
Much has been written about writing for Wikipedia. All of the following are good reading:
Worldbruce (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:48:54, 30 October 2015 review of submission by Accessfail


Hi there.

I created a page for my band called Hot Moth.

It was rejected due to us not meeting the notablility criteria. We have had a double page spread in a local music magazine, but no electronic copy of this, I can only provide a link to the magazines website.

Is there anything else I can do to get this page off the ground? Or do we literally need to be more "well known"..?

Cheers

Accessfail (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Accessfail - Assuming this is regarding Draft:Hot Moth, yes, the band has to pass notability guidelines for an article to get published or remain on the website. You can check out the main notability guidelines at WP:GNG, or the more specific guidelines for music related articles at WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 TT me 20:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:35:13, 30 October 2015 review of submission by Ryan at ITTIA

A previous draft of this page was not accepted for reading too much like an advertisement. Though I tried to use neutral language, I think it had too much detail. I have created a much simpler page with references to Dr. Dobbs, EETimes, and other notable industry publications.

Are these references sufficient? Should I remove the external links? Ryan at ITTIA (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The external links are not the main challenge you face, though minimising links to the org's own site is useful. I know you have not yet submitted the draft, but I have left a comment on it which I hope you will find of help. Had I reviewed it today I would have pushed it back to you for more work Fiddle Faddle 10:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

05:57:22, 31 October 2015 review of submission by Sunildattbhatt


The previous version was rejected

This one faces rejection for the same reason. I have left a substantial comment on the draft intended to help you. Please return here with further questions once you have read it. Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:26:42, 31 October 2015 review of submission by Iwantprivacy


I'm trying to get my brand's page established on Wikipedia but having a tough time. I have provided lots of independent resources where my brand has been talked about but for some reason it is not being approved. My brand's competitors already have presence on Wikipedia with far fewer mentions. Can someone please help and guide me on this?

Iwantprivacy (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Iwantprivacy: First, it is not currently submitted for review. Second it will fail on referencing. At least one reference doesn't mention the org at all, others are passing mentions, interview (which establish facts but not notability) and similar pieces. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
You have just declared a conflict of interest. This is acceptable during the Draft stage but not thereafter. Please read WP:COI. Fiddle Faddle 10:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent - I responded to IWP's query on my talk page yesterday, with much the same response, although you went into much more detail than I. Thanks for expanding. Onel5969 TT me 13:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: I try, but do not always succeed, to put myself into the contributing editor's shoes, and do my best to give them more than enough information to help them to move forward. Since we depend on their enthusiasm and skill to add new articles here I think we all need to try to do ever better than we did the last time we helped someone. Even so, the times we fail are simply the times we fail. Your response was excellent. I like to think mine was too. But we can both improve. Fiddle Faddle 14:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:44, 31 October 2015 review of submission by 80.42.191.43


80.42.191.43 (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

can a page be made for the ghost of greville lodge a film with prunella scales?

This depends only on the available referencing. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make such a draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Please enjoy researching and creating the draft. Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:16, 31 October 2015 review of submission by ErcScotti


Hello I've just had my first Wiki article (or editing) ever accepted (Start status), and have made some improvements. One of which was revising so the page was no longer an Orphan. I added eight appropriate links to the page. But now how does the “Orphan Notice” go away? (Since it is no longer accurate.) Thank you, it's great to get involved! ErcScotti


ErcScotti (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ErcScotti: Any editor in good standing may remove any banner that is deemed valid to remove. This includes you and me. Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

19:45:35, 1 November 2015 review of submission by Mrkacrawford

Thank you for your review of the Wikipedia submission, E-teaching. I understand that it was rejected because of a similarity with another topic--Technology Integration As I am new to content creation on Wikipedia, I was wondering if you could answer a few questions: 1.) When does a subject become so broad that new pages related to the existing page are allowed to be created? e.g. -> Hockey and Highsticking 2.) How does an editor decide whether there is enough interest on a topic (that is related to an existing topic) to justify the creation of a new page? Is there research put into how many users have searched these terms? 3.) When someone wants to add a page and they see that the topic has been deleted due to copyright issues or self-promotion? Does this not indicate to the editor that there may be a demand for this page? 4.) How does the first submission editor miss something as big as an already existing topic the first time around? This process seems a little messy to a first time user. (The first submission was much shorter as well)

With all due respect, I think it's apparent from reading my questions that I disagree with your rejection. Technology Integration is an excellent topic and I'm glad it exists. However, as a researcher and educator, I think more focus needs to be put on the pedagogical practices that incorporate technology integration i.e., e-Teaching. For example teaching and learning are two very different processes that and are deserved of separate pages discussing their nuances and connections to each other. The same can be said with e-Leanring and e-Teaching. As a researcher and educator, It's kind of hard to not feel discouraged by this editorial process within Wikipedia when so much time and effort has been put into a submission. I am not only challenging this decision, I'm asking for a little more information so it doesn't happen again and I can happily find existing information gaps within the larger topic of education on Wikipedia.

Additionally, I searched the multiple names for E-teaching and none of them kicked me to technology integration. E-learning did however redirect me to [Educational technology] NOT Technology integration.

When you search E-teaching the following only superficially related articles are given in the search results.


Sincerely, mrkacrawford


Mrkacrawford (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrkacrawford: It is not an issue if you disagree with a review. Have you opened a dialogue with the reviewer with whom you disagree? I am sure APerson will be happy to discuss this with you. Hackles down, though, please. Wikipedia is Wikipedia, many processes are arcane and unsatisfactory, but 5,000,000 articles have arrived here, most of which are good quality
I have neither read your draft nor the existing article. I am just pointing you, for the moment, at the very desirable goal of opening a dialogue with that reviewer. Fiddle Faddle 23:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:36:49, 1 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Misssarta


Hi there. I used to work as a rock journalist and always thought Vivabeat was a remarkable 80's band with a great story and a lot of credibility, so decided to set up a wikipedia page for them but am having a hard time. Can you please help me figure out what I'm missing with the citations?

Thanks much.

Telli

Misssarta (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Misssarta: Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. Glad you came! I'd suggest reading WP:REFB for a good introduction to referencing your content at Draft:Vivabeat. You'll want to wrap the citations themselves in <ref> tags, like this: Vivabeat was discovered by Peter Gabriel.<ref>Details about your citation—what it is, when it was published, who wrote it, where it's available—go here.</ref> Then the list of references will automagically appear at the bottom of your article, just beneath the "References" header. You can always find an existing article and see how it handles references too, if you can't quite get it to work in your draft. Thanks, /wia /tlk /cntrb 23:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:45:13, 1 November 2015 review of submission by Srea632


Srea632 (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Why was my arcticle for Stephen Rea estate agents rejected?[reply]

(edit conflict)@Srea632: Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. If you look at the draft (Draft:Stephen Rea Estate Agents), you will see in the pink box at the top that the draft was rejected because it does not show the notability of the company in question. As a first principle, Wikipedia articles about companies need to demonstrate that they are notable. Not every company is deserving of a Wikipedia article—after all, we are an encyclopedia, not a directory listing every business in existence.
There are thus a few issues with the article. First, there are no references, making it difficult to ascertain exactly why the company might be notable or whether the claims made are verifiable. Further, the draft appears to be slightly promotional in nature—I'm thinking in particular of phrases like "one of Northern Ireland's leading Estate Agents for Sales, Rentals and New Builds" and "an award winning Team of specialists". Those sentences sound like they are designed to attract new customers to the business. Wikipedia has a strict point of view policy that eschews such promotionalism in favour of neutral, unbiased prose. Finally, I should mention that if you are somehow connected to the company, then you have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.
Where to go from here if you do not have a conflict of interest? You might try looking for reliable, independent sources dealing with the company in some depth. I suspect (and this is my opinion; other reviewers may differ in opinion) that the company is simply not notable. However, if you can demonstrate that the subject meets the corporation notability requirements, then more power to you!
Let us know if you have further specific questions about the draft. Thanks, /wia /tlk /cntrb 00:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

02:54:06, 2 November 2015 review of submission by Stilldreamin57


I really don't know what I'm doing, I'm just guessing. This tech stuff is way above my abilities. I am trying to post material about my father, Milton Charles. The information I posted, his bio, was created word for word by an art appraiser after his death. Their name was/is St. Lifer Fine Art, INC. They created the bio in July of 2003. Stilldreamin57 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fear it is not the tech stuff that was your problem. The problem was that you copied and pasted copyright material into Wikipedia. We protect copyrights fiercely, and quite rightly. You must only write articles in your own words. Fiddle Faddle 09:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:06, 2 November 2015 review of submission by Oseji alexander uzoma


Hi, My name is Alex Oseji from Nigeria and i am relatively new to writing wiki articles. I am requesting assistance because i want to speed up my wikipedia article writing skills and possibly avoid unnecessary mistakes/ errors in the nearest future. i have quite a wide range of categories to write about. Thanks.Oseji alexander uzoma (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Oseji alexander uzoma (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:55:30, 2 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dorasteel


Hello - I just submitted an article called "cranial ultrasound". This was rejected (without review) because an article called "medical ultrasound" was apparently already awaiting review and there's already an article "transcranial doppler". In fact both these articles already exist on main Wikipedia - can't see one awaiting review. The "medical ultrasound" one does refer very briefly to cranial ultrasound, but I felt cranial ultrasound, which is quite a specific technique, deserved it's own piece (for example, it's usually done by paediatricians not sonographers, it is generally taught to practitioners as a distinct skill, it has its own protocols and set of disorders it's suited to). "Transcranial doppler", while technically a form of ultrasound scanning of the head, is quite a different thing. What should I do to have the article actually reviewed? Thanks. 12:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Dorasteel (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:49:22, 2 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog


Hello Sister Twister, ok my last shot: I again extended the article and added more references that I found, one from a newspaper and one from a published book. Hope that helps ? best regards

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=688691106"