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
No edit summary
Line 534: Line 534:


[[User:Js229|Js229]] ([[User talk:Js229|talk]]) 07:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Js229|Js229]] ([[User talk:Js229|talk]]) 07:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

== 09:45:03, 15 April 2016 review of submission by 103.19.198.78 ==
{{Lafc|username=103.19.198.78|ts=09:45:03, 15 April 2016|page=

}}

[[Special:Contributions/103.19.198.78|103.19.198.78]] ([[User talk:103.19.198.78|talk]]) 09:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:45, 15 April 2016

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


April 9

02:52:08, 9 April 2016 review of submission by 142.68.63.151


142.68.63.151 (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm wondering why my article Draft: Rbc morphology was declined. As far as I know, it doesn't read like an essay. I have no opionions in the article.If there are opionions, they are of the authors I wrote the articles from. Everything was cited. 142.68.63.151 (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Sion55 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:47:23, 9 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by FrazeFento


To whom it may concern, I am having trouble submitting an artical on Ron Fenton, South Africa Theatre Personality, first it was formatting, which I re-did. The second time I submitted, it got rejected on the grounds of notability. My subject is a notable personality in South African Theatre History, documented as a theatre personality. He has acted in a large number of professional plays, acted alongside many famous people. I put in links to productions he was in, referenced the famous people he worked with. Can you please let me know what is is exactly that my artical lacks, with a view to improve?

I still need to populate with his individual written works. Although, Theatre in South Africa is not documented too well in the 1970's, due to aparthied and other politicsl struggles. And amazed what i have found, hence the prompt to put Ron Fenton on Wikipedia. I am still looking for new resources. I was hoping it would get approved so hopefully to prompt orhers to add in or content

Look forward to hearing from you

Frazer Fenton.


FrazeFento (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrazeFento. It sounds as though you're thinking of "notability" as it is used in common parlance, rather than the specific way Wikipedia defines it. "Notable" in Wikipedia means meeting the criteria of one or more notability guidelines. The most applicable guidelines in this case are notability of actors and notability of creative professionals (authors and directors). Demonstrating notability generally comes down to proving that reliable secondary sources independent of the subject have written about the subject in depth. Acting in a large number of professional plays, acting alongside many famous people, and writing many plays does nothing to establish notability.
A theater's program listing cannot help establish notability because it is not independent (it has a vested interest in promoting the actor/writer/director). The program listings cited by the draft are also not in-depth, they merely mention Fenton in a cast list. Furthermore, Wikipedia is usually interested in the actors who played King Lear or Marc Anthony, not so much in those who played the role of Messenger. The draft mentions the existence of two newspaper reviews. Those might help establish notability. They are presumably independent, but do they cover Fenton at length or are they just general reviews of the play? --Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:06:02, 9 April 2016 review of submission by Lindadownunder


Hi I am requesting help because I am trying to contribute a list of Wonggie words to Wikipedia. I am trying to contribute to the next free column which is the 5th column - I hope it can be seen if you click on the link here http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Swadesh_lists_for_Australian_languages

However I don't know if I'm doing it correctly or not now, because HausterBot left a message to say that my entry here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wong-gie_dialect is only a draft and will be deleted shortly. I don't know if he means the general info about the Wonggie language I submitted or my list of Swadesh words will be deleted or both.

Unfortunately because I couldn't see a reply button, I couldn't work out how to communicate with HausterBot, to ask him what step I've missed out. All I could think of was trying to explain it here.

I'm guessing the email from HausterBot means the general information and/or the list words I've typed in haven't been submitted correctly so they aren't "live" or available for others to view. If I've missed some step,please would you mind emailing me.

There aren't many copies of the Wong-gie dictionary I am using to make the Swadesh list, and the aboriginal dialect is disappearing, so I thought it would be useful to catalogue as many of the Wonggie words as possible and put them up onto Wikipedia for others to use. Sorry, because this is the first time I've contributed to Wikipedia and I'm not very internet savvy, I need a bit more guidance than most.

Thanks kindly Lindadownunder 

11:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Lindadownunder (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Lindadownunder (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:38:11, 9 April 2016 review of submission by Twatface666


Dear sir madam, please can you tell me how to upload a photograph please?

Twatface666 (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:43:07, 9 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Twatface666


Hello there, I see my article has been declined. The thing is, it's about "Malcolm Stephen "Scruff" Lewty", and I AM Malcolm Stephen "Scruff" Lewty. I'm actually writing about myself.

Does this clear everything up at all ?

Sincerely

Malcolm Lewty.


Twatface666 (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twatface666. Unlike Facebook or MySpace, Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources have published about a person, not what a person says about themselves. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:22:55, 9 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by WVUHistorian9


Article reviewed but not accepted. I need to know what I can do to revise so it will be accepted.

WVUHistorian9 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WVUHistorian9. Outstanding choice of topic! I've added a further reading section with eight independent, reliable, secondary sources. That should settle any questions about notability. I also added links to some of the references so readers can quickly access them or figure out how to access them.
Two of the references cited are problematic. (1) "Layman Gets National Job Newspaper Article" is an insufficient description. For a reader to find that source they would need at least the name of the newspaper and the publication date. Include author, publication location, and page number too if you have them. (2) "Lloyd Layman Archival Collection, West Virginia University State Fire Training Academy" sounds like a primary source closely connected to Layman (his letters and personal papers?) Such material may be used in Wikipedia, but only very carefully. Original research is not allowed. Also, archive collections typically consist of multiple boxes containing multiple items. Any citation needs to be as specific as possible regarding which item in the collection supports the statement where cited.
Try to replace citations of the archive with the secondary sources that have been added to further reading. If you don't have access to the two subscription ones, you can get them through WP:RX or use Special:EmailUser to email me and I'll reply with the two pdfs as attachments. Finally, revisit the lead with Wikipedia:Writing better articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section in mind. I've given the reader a bit more context by putting the dates of birth and death in the first sentence. Consider adding nationality (remember we're read from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe), postponing the long list of job titles in favor of a very concise description of profession (police chief and fire chief), and not burying what he's notable for (revolutionized firefighting). Once you have the reader hooked you can give a more thorough explanation. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

02:48:30, 10 April 2016 review of submission by RenegadeTerry


Please explain in detail why my page has been denied. Thank you

RenegadeTerry (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the box of the top of the page is a detailed description of what I feel is wrong with this article. It does not contain any references to third-party independent sources, and therefore we cannot verify that the information provided is true. Please review the guidelines on biographies of living people, as well as the instructions on references. Please note that if multiple independent sources cannot be found for this topic, it does not belong in the encyclopedia and will continue to be rejected. If you have any further questions, you may ask them here or at User talk:RenegadeTerry/sandbox/Terry Morton. Hope that helps. Bradv 02:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:49:02, 10 April 2016 review of submission by MilenaGlebova1989


Hi editors! I have submitted this article for review and got declined due to it not being notable.

Please see the following article that has been posted and approved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandra_(Esposende)

It is similar in nature, or am I off on that?

It is a small populated municipality or division, with population smaller than the municipality I am describing. It has two sources, one of which is in Portuguese.

I could not find any English sources for my article, however, please also see the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saratov#cite_note-2010Census-10. It has resources that are in Russian. How come those are valid?

There are third party articles that I listed as resources in my entry. One of which is a local media coverage article. How come it is not considered valid?

Please let me know how I can make this article happen.

Thank you for your help and input.

MilenaGlebova1989 (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MilenaGlebova1989 as a subdivision of a city it may be difficult to establish that it has sufficient notability to sustain a separate article. I think you could consider adding the information to the Saratov article. The topic specialists at WP:WikiProject Russia might have more specific advice. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:17:08, 10 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Doug88Ocean


Thanks for the note. I would like to know what other information you might need for this, as it is term that should be logical to understand, as nature repeats itself every day, with sounds of nature/animals that call to one another. These sounds happen daily, and therefore they repeat. This is therefore what "Eco Repetition" means. I am not sure what studies or information might be needed to prove this, as I believe it is common knowledge. It is this new term "Eco Repetition", which "qualifies" or describes this occurrence. We have used the word to link that noise or activity to Nature, and when blended with a message to humans, such as a reminder to do something when you hear the sound, you end up with a powerful "alarm clock" of nature, which goes off automatically on a daily basis. I do not believe there is any such way to further study or prove this, as everyone knows the noises happen - it simply depends how that noise is used to become a useful message to humans. In our case, it is via a play or show, which educates and reminds people about undertaking a certain activity - in this case, recycling or better waste management.

I look forward to hearing from you. Doug


Doug88Ocean (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug88Ocean. The neologism is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Doug88Ocean:, with new specialized terms, we don't need you to justify the existence of what the term describes, we need you to show that the term itself is being talked about, discussed in media and/or academia. If for example a term is only being used in the informal sphere, or is only used by one academic or them and their colleagues but not taken note of by the wider community, it does not (yet) merit an article. I strongly advise you read WP:Neologisms which explains what kind of acceptance/awareness of the term must be included to get the draft published. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:26:57, 10 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Cndrblck


This article keeps getting rejected for notability, but at this point I have no idea why. The article is for a podcast that is hosted by two people who each have their own Wikipedia pages (their notability is not in question). On top of that, the podcast has been referenced by The Daily Show, Vanity Fair, the Washington Post, etc. I specifically added content to the introduction that calls out the notability of the podcast.

How is this not notable?

Cndrblck (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:46:00, 10 April 2016 review of submission by Gute Recherche


Daniel Puente Encina biography was classified as an C article and I'd love to know how I might improve it. I will keep on collecting information. Regarding his birthdate he never told anybody the truth. I listened to several interviews where he gave weird answers with fictive numbers as eg "I am 468 years old and I want to become 900". If somebody doesn't want to reveal his or her age, I think we should respect personal decisions. I started to collect information about this artist in 1996.Gute Recherche (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gute Recherche (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gute Recherche This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Now that your draft has been accepted, it is outside of our scope. I suggest the following links, but the Wikipedia:Help desk may be able to give you better advice:
Translate or improve other articles. (See Wikipedia:Translation, Wikipedia:Community portal, or one of the projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians if you are unsure where to start. If your interest in culture extends to art museums, de [Grazer Kunstverein], de [Kunstmuseum St. Gallen], and de [Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg] need translation.) The more widely you edit, the more ideas you'll have about how to improve your first article. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you Gute Recherche (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

05:19:54, 11 April 2016 review of submission by Dmacfady


Dear Bradv/Wiki Editors Thanks for looking at the article. Could I please ask what constitutes peacock terms in the article? I have no professional connection to the artist in question and remain very uncertain of which terms are not proper. Without a list of them, I'll be guessing forever. Thanks very much for your expert insight. Once again, I would really appreciate a list, otherwise I'll remove the text from Wikipedia, since it doesn't seem proper in this context.I've already been trying for two months to submit two paragraphs. If we're talking about the "stature" of the newspapers quoted, the paper-based publication industry in Ukraine, Georgia, etc was decimated after the end of the Soviet system––and all publication subsidies ended. All news is therefore online and in venues we might in the West take to be "fleeting." I'm presuming the reviewers know the languages and social issues at hand, so that, I hope, is not the matter. I take, as suggested, the key issue to be inappropriate language, hence my initial query. I would be extremely grateful for detailed help.

Dmacfady (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:41:54, 11 April 2016 review of submission by 90.152.126.150

Hi, i'm trying to submit an article for a very good and quite famous composer here in the UK, Gavin Higgins. I'm new to Wiki and followed all the rules when siting references and creating the article, however, it has now been refused twice due to 'notability issues'. This can't be right surely? He's won international awards, all cited and referenced, and had commissions from some of the World's leading ensembles and Orchestras, also referenced.

Could you please shed some light on this? Thanks.

90.152.126.150 (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the page in your current IP's contributions log so please give us a link to the draft about Higgins so that we can give you proper advice. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:58, 11 April 2016 review of submission by KatyWinter

Hi,

Please can someone help? The page 'House of Marbles' has been declined... This is not for the purposes of propoganda but should have a page as it is a visitor attraction and site of historical interest in Devon. I have re-written the article to try to meet the requirements stated but it has still been declined! I need a bit more guidance on how this can be fixed if anyone is able to help please?

You can see the draft at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:House_of_Marbles

Many Thanks,

Katy

KatyWinter (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:01:27, 11 April 2016 review of submission by 1983jg

Thanks for your reply, Roger. I'm now logged in. I'm trying to submit an article for a very good and quite famous composer here in the UK, Gavin Higgins. I'm new to Wiki and followed all the rules when siting references and creating the article, however, it has now been refused twice due to 'notability issues'. This can't be right surely? He's won international awards, all cited and referenced, and had commissions from some of the World's leading ensembles and Orchestras, also referenced. Many thanks for your help. 1983jg (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:31:14, 11 April 2016 review of submission by HarishMP

It is sad when you decide to contribute to the world by creating an article about anybody/anything which is not on Wikipedia which might be useful to atleast 1 reader, gets rejected.(It's really hard to find something that is not on Wikipedia)

Declaration: I'm a beginner here.

The draft got the following comments.

  • Comment: Please decrease the amount of focus on his early life and increase the focus on his career. He appears to be notable, but there are tone issues in that that article, focusing on his early life, appears to be promotional rather than neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was good advice. I did remove a lot of content that seemed promotional. Try to remember the phrase in the above comment "He appears to be notable".

  • Comment: Get rid of all the imdb references - not a reliable source. Please format remaining references properly as per WP:CIT. Right now, not enough in-depth coverage to show notability, but I agree with Robert McClenon, that this actor is probably notable, just needs better sourcing, and still has an issue with the tone of the article. Finally, be wary of WP:CITEKILL. Hold the references down to no more than 2 per assertion. Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above comment I would like to say the following. 1. I agree that imdb references are not a reliable source. 2. I have stated that I'm a beginner and I might have committed a lot of mistakes in referencing properly as per WP:CIT. 3. Regarding the in-depth coverage thing; this actor has shared screenspace with Morgan Freeman and Tom Hardy, I wonder if I could include the movie itself to show notability or a link to it.(only if it is copyright free ofcourse).

Again, try to remember the phrase in the above comment "I agree with Robert McClenon, that this actor is probably notable".

So let me iterate. Both have said that this guy "is notable" even without proper referencing. But it was declined by the second commenter Onel5969 immediately after leaving his comment. It was not like this, this and this is not verifiable, but this, this and that can be approved and the rest can be added by other contributors. No, even his name will get rejected if no reference is provided about planet Earth.

If this is a prank on beginner thing, its not funny. If its not a prank, I feel like scrambled egg on Charlie Chaplin's moustache.

Please comment. Contributors who like to take over, good luck. Me thinking about contributing on Wikipedia after this episode, 0 to none.

HarishMP (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @HarishMP:, it's of course your call whether you enjoy continuing with Wikipedia or no, but I do urge you to not be offended by the process. To your points:
  • Yes, the editors are agreeing he is probably Notable, but we can't release an article even if it is a totally valid topic, if the references are not yet correct.
  • The issue is that since many of your facts are cited to IMDB, they're aren't reliably documented facts, so if we cite them here, and it turns out IMDB is wrong, we'd be perpetuating their mistake. That's why we require sourcing to newspapers, film industry journals, official blogs/commentaries, etc so we can be sure we have good facts.
  • This is not at all about disrespecting Modele, it's precisely because we take his reputation seriously that we require solid sourcing before launching. Having facts that aren't cited to reliable, non-IMDB sources risks mis-informing the public about Modele, which would be doing him a huge disservice. We aren't at all trying to stop you from informing the world about Modele, we're trying to help you to make sure that your article does him justice.
I hope this at least helps explain the WP side so you're not leaving sore. If you think about it a bit and decide to continue forward, feel free to ask for guidance here, or check in at WP:Tearoom to ask questions of our volunteer mentors, or if you like ping me directly on my Talk page. We do appreciate your efforts, and understanding that "learning the ropes" can be trying in a system with so many checks and balances to try to maintain quality, but your patience and understanding are appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

03:37:51, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Pomsman Pomunoda Mudyanebanga

hi reader this is third time of creating a new account but all this accounts are being diclined and deleted which i cant even understand why seems like somebody is just following my back .the first was Pomsman Mudyanebanga ; the second was Orchestra opera the ostrich kings and now another account Pomsman Pomunoda Mudyanebanga my addition is being refused again so a cant undastand what is the use of wikipedia Pomsman Pomunoda Mudyanebanga (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pomsman Pomunoda Mudyanebanga (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:15:28, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Mwmconnelly


Hello, I am trying to make this article Wikipedia user friendly and wondered whether it would be better to remove the Impact Reports featured, which are reports produced from the data held in Researchfish. The publications are independant publications which feature Researchfish, who uses it and why.

There have also been some comparison articles written independently for similar systems and I wondered if sourcing these would also help?

Your help would be gratefully received.

Regards Lisa Mwmconnelly (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:31:41, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Rouken

Hi there, I'm confused as to why my submitted article has been rejected for inclusion on Wikipedia. The first comment I received from reviewer SwisterTwister cited a lack of references as the sole reason for rejection, despite my having already included 18 references to popular, influential and highly relevant 3rd party sources. In response, I added 12 more references only for user Bradv to reject the resubmitted page because it apparently appears to read more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia entry.

Before I wrote the article, I studied a number of Wikipedia entries for very similar businesses so as to avoid exactly this issue, particularly the Sample Magic page. I'm struggling to see how my page is deemed more advertisement than Wikipedia entry when the Sample Magic page is not, especially considering I've included more references in total to a greater number of 3rd party sources than this particular page, which cites a smaller number of sources multiple times. Comparing my submission again to both the Prime Loops and Loopmasters pages, which are both flagged with issues yet nevertheless are approved entries on Wikipedia, I again struggle to see why exactly my article has been rejected. Any help in this regard would be greatly appreciated and I thank you for your time in advance. Rouken (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:56:40, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Feerozhasan


Feerozhasan (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Feerozhasan: Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. Do you have a specific question about the draft? I have declined it because it is written in too conversational and non-neutral a tone, and because it does not cite any references indicating where this information comes from. As a result, the draft does not show whether the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You may wish to read this page about how to write your first article. I would suggest also looking at this page about using references in Wikipedia or checking out the video on that page. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 13:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:55:46, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Riotmuffin


Hello - I am looking for advice regarding how to modify this draft such that it meets the standards for inclusion. I have already included references to reliable, substantive news coverage of the subject, who meets the criteria listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Additional_criteria under "Any Biography" and "Creative Professionals."

Thank you.

14:12:14, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Norac Eeb


Can you delete a draft contribution once created?


Norac Eeb (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it was entirely your own work you could have tagged it for speedy deletion with {{db-user}}, but not in this case because other editors have also contributed to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:08, 12 April 2016 review of submission by 1983jg

I'm trying to submit an article for a very good and quite famous composer here in the UK. I'm new to Wiki and followed all the rules when siting references and creating the article, however, it has now been refused twice due to 'notability issues'. This can't be right surely? He's won international awards, all cited and referenced, and had commissions from some of the World's leading ensembles and Orchestras, also referenced. Many thanks for your help. 1983jg (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC) 1983jg (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1983jg. Higgins is notable, but that is not shown by the draft's sources. What is needed is in-depth coverage in arms-length, reliable, secondary sources. The review in The Guardian only gives Higgins about two sentences. None of British Composer Awards, World of Sound, PRS for Music Foundation, or Rambert is arms-length. An organization giving someone an award, selling their music, or working with them has a vested interest in promoting them. World of Brass and The Cross-Eyed Pianist do not meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. I'm skeptical about 4barsrest.com. They may be a reliable source for the fact that the recording won the "4barsrest CD and Newcomer of the year award", but is the award worth noting in an encyclopedia?
Unreliable sources are toxic to the draft's prospects; get rid of them. Sources that are not independent may be used, but sparingly. Maybe keep British Composer Awards, but try to replace the other three. I've added a further reading section with five reliable sources (newspapers and a book). Use them to replace lower quality sources and for additional content to expand the draft, but don't lean too heavily on the interviews, which are to some extent primary sources - Higgins talking about Higgins. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:40:00, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Cbass717


Hey all, just wanted to inquire about some more specifics as too which sources in particular were not reliable enough. Were some sources adequate, or were all of the listed sources inadequate? Aside from the sources, is there anything else about the article that doesn't meet the sites requirements? Just curious so I can work to improve.

Thanks


Cbass717 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbass717, for the most part you should avoid using the subject's own website as a source. It may be used sparingly for uncontroversial "basic" information such as addresses, dates, etc. Wikipedia doesn't care much about what a subject has to say about itself, the opinions of outsiders such as journalists or academics are what makes a topic notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:28:35, 12 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Femme Nuit



Femme Nuit (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have now tried several times to add the article - improving and adding references. I am now asked to delete all external links from the draft. Which ones are we talking about here? It would be super helpful if I knew exactly what external links we are talking about (how do I know which "external links are referred to?). I am totally new to this and this is my first try with adding info on women in the arts. Thanks in advance Femme Nuit (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Femme Nuit, the links referred to are those embedded in the article text that are not references, they simply take the reader to a different website. Some of them might actually be usable as references, but if not they should simply be removed. A few of the most directly relevant external links can be listed under an "External links" section below the References. See the external links guide for further details. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:01:17, 12 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by BWhitesides


I have been struggling to create a Wikipedia page for a prominent Bangladeshi scientist for some time now, and I have found several references from the Bangladesh Academy of Science, the Botanical Society of Bengal, the University of Calcutta as well as his own published works in reputable journals yet my article keeps getting rejected saying I need yet more sources.

Here is a link to the draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._Syed_Hedayetullah

I am writing this article at the behest of Dr. Hedayetullah's PhD students who want to honor his legacy and his accomplishments in Agriculture in Bangladesh and it is such a disappointment that I cannot even get their mentor, a prominent scholar in the country which have links to prove it, a basic wiki page.

I created the original text of the article from his obituary which was printed a long time ago (it is not on the internet), and while I wish there were more sources on the internet the 6-7 that I've found are as good as it's going to get and I've seen many many pages with less.

I find this incredibly frustrating as I have provided numerous sources and links and cannot even get approved, while other Bangladeshi scientists have much fewer referenceS and they are approved, such as these people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurul_Islam_(economist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arun_Kumar_Basak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashesh_Prasad_Mitra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Qudrat-i-Khuda

Can someone please help me and Dr. Hedayetullah's PhD students get his article over the finish line? He IS clearly an important notable figure having been the Director of Agriculture, Founding Fellow of the Bangladesh Academy of Sciences, and Founder of the Botanical Society of Bengal and Agriculture College, Dhaka.

I would obviously provide more references if I could, but he died 40 years ago. Please help!

BWhitesides (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BWhitesides. As a fellow of the Bangladesh Academy of Sciences, Hedayetullah passes the professor test, so you can assume that a biography of him will eventually be included in Wikipedia. You write that you "created the original text of the article from his obituary". It is vital that you cite your source. It doesn't matter if you can't provide a url for it. Just fill in a {{cite news}} template with enough information that a reader could find it in an archive - at a minimum the title of the article, the name of the newspaper, and the date of publication. Otherwise the 75% of the draft that cites no sources will have to go. It isn't a matter of needing many more sources, just a case of needing to identify the source(s) of the current content.
Fixing the following would improve the draft, but these shortcomings will not prevent its acceptance:
  • A smidgen more context is needed. The target audience is the average high school student. The draft generally does a good job in this regard, for example: using the word "botany" to prepare the reader before throwing "cytology and cytogenetics" at them; talking about "rice research" before a long list of unfamiliar varieties, and then following through with what is unique and important about each variety; linking the uncommon term haor. Consider adding a small number of links (no more than say 10) to the subjects a reader would most likely need more information about in order to understand Hedayetullah. The text may not be read online, so don't rely solely on the links, but don't repeat large portions of other articles either. A single sentence about what jute is and why it's important to Bangladesh, or a single word in parenthesis, e.g. "haor (wetland)", would usually be enough context.
  • Avoid unnecessary capitalization. Don't be led astray by sources that capitalize Every Important Word.
--Worldbruce (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:42:03, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Wdjones8585

I am having a hard time understanding why my submission violates the articles for creation. Could you be more specific? There are several other pages that I find that use similar citation practices, such as Trapit and WePay. Wdjones8585 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:19:54, 12 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Marysdogs


Hi, could you tell me what formatting issues I'm handling incorrectly? And ideally how to address them in the visual editor? Thank you! (A couple relatively minor style details are obvious, and I'm going after them, but there's probably something else going on. Thanks so much!


Marysdogs (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marysdogs, don't worry too much about formatting, as long as the text is readable the layout can easily be fixed. Incorrect formatting is not a valid reason to decline a draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've just reviewed the draft and accepted it, the article is now at Michael Goldberg (writer). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

14:27:59, 13 April 2016 review of submission by Fagun99i


Emu Desai is 75 years old and he is notable according to me as I am from the Same City and State. Unfortunately local media is having many reports but they are not archived on internet. My page was declined. Could you please help me how can I get the approval for this Page? In meantime, I am in search of more online/offline references. Fagun99i (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:11:51, 13 April 2016 review of submission by Jeanettenj11

I am not sure why my submission was declined. I included a number of references from major publications that confirm the notability of the subject. Please let me know if I referenced the article incorrectly, or if I need to include even more references to establish notability. Many thanks! Jeanette

Jeanettenj11 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:36, 13 April 2016 review of submission by Sethgodin


Thanks for the quick response. Notability was confirmed by the editor, but he objected to peacock language in first paragraph (sorry, I was trying to make it clear to the reader what the context for this person was.) It's now removed, and I feel like the bio is solid.

Can you please let me know what else needs to be fixed?

Thanks!

Seth


Sethgodin (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:16:15, 13 April 2016 review of submission by Emmayj2

We have since added several outside sources as requested by our initial review. The second reviewer appears to have turned us down for the same reason. I added the additional sources in the History section. I am wondering if they were not noticed - perhaps I put them in the wrong place? Would greatly appreciate any assitance. Emmayj2 (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:27:16, 13 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Lawrence Theo



Lawrence Theo (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:41:14, 13 April 2016 review of submission by Lawrence Theo




Fix my name and search box.

Request on 18:58:42, 13 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Avery.brister


My reviewer said to reformat my references because they were listed twice but I have no clue how to do that. Creating the article as it is right now was difficult enough to me. This is a school assignment so I have to get my article approved.

Avery.brister (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avery.brister, I'm afraid your draft can never be accepted because we already have an article about the topic at Tinman gene. If your topic was assigned to you please inform your professor that when a topic already exists it prevents the creation of a new article, only the existing article can be improved. (BTW this is the second draft submission about this gene that I have seen in less than a day.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

Request on 06:44:02, 14 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Rodeocowboy36


Hi We are relatively new to Wiki but we work on the admin team for the royal variety charity and the royal variety performance and have done major overhauls of the wiki pages for both these.

The charity is one of the oldest in the,uk and the queen is our sole patron.

We have also successfully created a page for our president laurie mansfield whch was approved almost straight away and is live.

Our elected Chairman (more senior to hon president) is more problematic to get approved - see draft page for giles richard cooper. We have made numerous edits based on the very small amount of advice given by The reviewer Sister Twister, including numerois third party refs.

However, despite repeated efforts we are unable to get the page approved or obtain any further feedback from the reviewer.

Our only motive is to create good pages for wiki and to have our very distinguished senior management represented

Please help us

Looking forwad to your reply

Best regards

Rodeocowboy36 (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeocowboy36 (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodeocowboy36: Please clarify what you mean by "we", "our", and "us". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodeocowboy36: Please remove the royal name-dropping, the draft is about Cooper, Wikipedia is not the Daily Mail, nobody cares which princess was at which concert. Next strip out most of the listed External links - only those that are specifically about Cooper are worth keeping. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:46:12, 14 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Pidgebird


I am the publisher of The Black Chronicle: Our History as News, a publication that presents African American History using a newspaper format. Fourteen issues cover the period from the Revolutionary War through the Civil Rights era. The material was researched at the Arthur C. Schomberg Collection in New York City and at many of the nation's finest collections of Black American history. I originated the Black Chronicle in the late 60s, and it was produced under the supervision of respected historians by Blackside, Inc., a well-known media company that also produced "Eyes on the Prize," the award winning Civil Rights documentary. The publication was distributed for several years by Holt Rinehart and Winston. It has been used in schools and churches nationwide, and is still highly regarded (it is currently available on www.ourhistoryasnews.org and in many bookstores). I submitted an article about it to Wikipedia some time ago, but it was not accepted. I would very much like to re-submit, and would welcome any suggestions or advice about revising my submission.

Thank you very much for your consideration. Pidgebird (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pidgebird (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:25:28, 14 April 2016 review of submission by AllieF16


My draft article was rejected with a note saying "Edit section headings". I'm unsure what steps to take to improve the section headings, and am hoping for some guidance. Thank you.

April 15

04:27:57, 15 April 2016 review of submission by Markadley


Markadley (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:27:57, 15 April 2016 review of submission by Markadley


Markadley (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia,

My article has been declined on two points, and I would like to question these if possible.

Point 1

La Mona wrote: It appears that all but two of the references are about drugs but not about the drugs wheel. (About the wheel: #9 a copy of it, #10 a copy plus some text.) It may be that the article is mis-named, but references on an article with this name must be about the wheel itself.

Can I direct you to the following five referenced articles that point to the Drugs Wheel itself:

The Drugs Wheel itself is referenced by name six times in Home Office (2015). New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) Resource Pack for informal educators and practitioners. ISBN: 978-1-78246-730-4. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-psychoactive-substances-nps-resource-pack.

The Drugs Wheel itself is referenced by name on page two of Fraser, F. (2014). New Psychoactive Substances - Evidence Review.’. Scottish Government Social Research. Crown copyright 2014. Available online: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00457682.pdf

The Drugs and Effects wheels are referenced by name on pages 718, 719, 721 of Dr F. Gilani (2015). ‘Legal highs’: Novel psychoactive substances. InnovAiT, 8(12), 717–724. DOI: 10.1177/1755738015612509. Available online: http://m.ino.sagepub.com/content/8/12/717.full.pdf

The Drugs Wheel is referenced by name in Fletcher, E., Tasker, S., Easton, P. and Denvir, L. (2015). Improving the help and support provided to people who take new psychoactive substances (‘legal highs’). Journal of Public Health pp. 1–7 doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdv191

The Drugs Wheel is referenced by name, and allocated its own training session in K. MacLeod, J.P. Kools, K.Schiffer, E.Schatz (2016). New Psychoactive Substances in Europe State of Affairs, Trends and Developments. Amsterdam: Regenboog Groep, Correlation Network. Available online: http://npsineurope.eu/images/pdf/publication/NPS_manual_web.pdf


Point 2

La Mona wrote: The UK & French wheels are CC-BY-NC-SA, and I'm not sure that is an acceptable license for use of the image because of the NC portion. Commons licensing page says "Commercial use of the work must be allowed."


I am a little unclear about this. The Drugs Wheel is not licenced under a Wikimedia: Commons licence, but under a Creative Commons Licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode. Under this licence:

License grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:

reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and

produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only.


I look forward to your response.

Kind regards

Mark

07:33:41, 15 April 2016 review of submission by Js229

The AfC process has rejected this article on the grounds of notability. I believe this has been based on good faith judgements but ones not correctly based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

The article itself as drafted contains more than five separate independent reliable sources - one book, two articles from a long running local history print publication, one official listed building register entry, newspaper articles, a textbook on the history of the cotton industry and the UK Dictionary of National Biography. The book, by an experienced historian named Bamford, specifically describes the subject of the article as notable, gives reasons why which are described in the article, and devotes about (I don't have it to hand at the moment) a page to him; he is the explicit subject, in part, of one of the local history articles and mentioned in the other; the house he built is explicitly (and relatively unusually) described as being notable for having a wealthy patron. In addition there are newspaper articles that mention the individual by name and an authoritative text that attests to the notability of the firm for which he worked as a director. The reference in the DNB is a passing one, but nevertheless he was considered worthy of naming in an extremely authoritative and measured reference source. In short, there is at least an arguable case that this is a notable article.

However, this article did not receive any meaningful debate to address this patently arguable case. The first reviewer commented, somewhat unclearly, that it needed 'any amount' of further sources, despite the fact that it already contained multiple significant secondary sources - ie on the face of it met WP:N; if the reviewer felt the article was not notable according to this guideline they would need to base that on a belief that the sources were not significant, not on a belief that more were needed. I queried this with the reviewer, pointing out WP:N but they essentially repeated their previous judgement. No doubt attempting to be helpful they added that they had improved another article by adding that someone was 'the largest landholder in Michigan', a notability claim similar (in the ordinary use of the word notable) to one already in this article; they didn't refer to WP:N or address any of the specific points I made on their talk page. In the absence of reasons I am left to speculate that the reviewer may not have seen the Bamford book (which is not available online), and may have discounted its significance as a source for this reason.

When I submitted the article for re-review I left in the comments that the first reviewer has made, although they applied to an earlier version of the article. The second reviewer merely inserted the same template as the first, and thus in the same way failed to engage with the arguable case for notability. Again I am left to speculate, in the absence of detail, that the second reviewer was influenced only by the first reviewer's commments.

I invite those who participate in the AfC process to see that I have been left with the impression that the reviewers decided whether the article was interesting to them, not whether it complied with Wikipedia's specific notability guidelines. In any case I feel I am unable to debate the rejection because the reasons given do not make sense to me. I would appreciate comments on whether it would be better to reach consensus by withdrawing from the AfC process and simply creating the article in the main space.

Js229 (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:45:03, 15 April 2016 review of submission by 103.19.198.78


103.19.198.78 (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=715363981"