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
DmitryXII (talk | contribs)
15 edits
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 587: Line 587:
I've come to a bump as my submission was denied for the second time. I have stated that I have a conflict of interest, and as such may not be the best person to remove the "reads like an advertising" flaw. However seeing as the similarly-referenced [[OMAS|OMAS SRL.]] article, and the two companies are similar in the interest shown by the community on both brands is similar. I would greatly appreciate any help in making this article more neutral and factual.
I've come to a bump as my submission was denied for the second time. I have stated that I have a conflict of interest, and as such may not be the best person to remove the "reads like an advertising" flaw. However seeing as the similarly-referenced [[OMAS|OMAS SRL.]] article, and the two companies are similar in the interest shown by the community on both brands is similar. I would greatly appreciate any help in making this article more neutral and factual.
[[User:DmitryXII|DmitryXII]] ([[User talk:DmitryXII|talk]]) 07:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
[[User:DmitryXII|DmitryXII]] ([[User talk:DmitryXII|talk]]) 07:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

== 08:44:14, 26 June 2018 review of submission by Nikhiljain founder ==
{{Lafc|username=Nikhiljain founder|ts=08:44:14, 26 June 2018|declined=Draft:RoxStarIndia}}


[[User:Nikhiljain founder|Nikhiljain founder]] ([[User talk:Nikhiljain founder|talk]]) 08:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:44, 26 June 2018

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


June 20

Request on 14:31:42, 20 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Acokinos1

I have added significant independent sources. I am not sure where I am going wrong with the submission. Please explain further with more details on how to make it better. Acokinos1 (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acokinos1 Hi Good day. I have reviewed your article; however, at this stage the subject doesnt not show he meets the notability requirements and the source provided are primary ( which means not independent). I have left you some comment and links on the draft page, pls visit and read them. Do pop by if you need further assistance. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Acokinos1 - And don't forget about declaring a Conflict of interest and reading our guidance on Conflict editing. Your Username suggests a conflict exists. KJP1 (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:57:44, 20 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Startupfollower01


Hi! I have created my first draft and it has been declined. Can you help me to understand what is wrong and what should I change so that I can fix it and try to submit it again? thanks

Startupfollower01 (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Startupfollower01 Greetings to you and thank you for the question above. Please see below and click on blue highlighted texts for they will lead you to another page where info will be presented in details of the topics:
  1. The reviewer did leave you a message where you could find it on top of the Draft:IGenius in the grey box where it stated the article read like a advertisement where by the content written in a manner with inclination of promoting or soliciting the company's services. Wikipedia a an encyclopedia, for such content should be written in neutral point of view and this draft copy need to be rewritten.
  2. Content in Wikipedia need to back up and with significant coverage by independent, reliable source (secondary sources). Sources from newspaper and publications "directly" talk about the subject in "depth" but not mere passing mention where the claims could be verified would be ideal for such it could establish the notability requirements of the subject - please see Wikipedia ogranisation notability requirements. The sources provided in the draft article are WP:PRIMARY sources where either they are listing or interview pieces, for such they are not suitable.
  3. IGenius is a startup organisation where it has been in operation for only two years. In most cases, company as such would difficult to find quality sources which meet the requirements of as needed by Wikipedia; however, if you could locate them, then pls provide the inline citation and resubmit the draft.
I believe I have answered your question, if not do check out WP:GOLDENRULE for everything else which I have missed..
Thank you and have a good day. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:40, 20 June 2018 review of submission by Fighting12


Hi, i have added certain and true source after rejecting article (Laya Abbasmirzaei) such as news, imdb, festival, image , books, video...,,and resubmitted it again,regretfully I am waiting for manyyyyyy days ago for a volunteer to review it !! Why ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighting12 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting12 Hi good day. Please be patient. Do note that the patllores/reviewers for new page patrol (NPP) and articles for creation (AfC) are all volunteers and we have a backlog of 5K pages waiting to be reviewed to date, which is a drastic reduction as compared to six months ago where we faced a backlog of 13K. For NPP the backlog currently is 3 months and AfC is 4 weeks. There is no first come first serve basics on reviewing process, since the we the reviewers are volunteers, each would pick and choose the articles of the subjects that they are comfortable/familiar with. For example, anything is highly technical with 3/4 of the page fills with high level of maths functions/proofs/, I would not consider to review them for I would need to go back to university to take a few said subjects just to understand the content, let alone review them.
By the way, your Draft:Laya Abbasmirzaei page has been reviewed by Bradv and the draft has been declined. All three reviewers had left you some comments and there are three messages on the "grey panels" on top of the draft page, letting you know what need are required of you. Do click on the links (blue highlighted texts) for further details of the topics. Please note that IMBD, Google images, Utube videos, interview pieces, home pages and etc are all primary sources and the cant not be used to satisfy the Wikipedia requirements for only independent, reliable sources (secondary source) could be deem suitable. I have done up a set of tables on different types of sources, outlining the definitions and examples where you could find them at the 'source' section under the message titled '16:46:49, 28 May 2018 review of submission by Soniaang' - see here for your perusal. In additional please visit Help:Referencing for beginners so you could rework on the citing method of the page. Lastly, a page is accepted by Wikipedia if the subject is notable - pls see the notability requirements for WP:FILMMAKER and WP:NACTOR. In short, this is the requirements Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. If the subject is not notable, no amount of editing would merit the article in Wikipedia mainspace. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:07:01, 21 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Umformtechtum


Hello, the article that I have recently submitted was declined with the explanation that it reads more like a text book article. I am insecure now in how far and what exactly has to be changed so that it can be accepted. The article I have submitted is the English version of the Wikipedia article "Zugprobe" in the German wikipedia (engl.: Tensile specimen) which I did not create but filled with additional information about the manufacturing process and possibilities of tensile specimens. I was very keen to support it with many sources and scientific articles because I was afraid it would be declined otherwise. I created the same article as a new article in the English Wikipedia now but was declined, not because of sources, but apparently because of the style of writing. I know, it should not sound like text book article but this information does not really help me to understand what exactly has to be changed now. Can I possibly receive an example of why my article draft sounds different to the appropriate Wikipedia style and maybe receive support on what exactly I have to change and look out for in the future?

Thank you very much in advance

Umformtechtum (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umformtechtum Good day. First of all, please click on any blue highlighted text if you would like to find out the details of the topics.
  1. Paid proper attribution - You have copied and pasted the content from DE Wiki - see here [1] in translation to EN Wiki - see here Draft:Tensile_specimen, and you need to pay proper attribution (PATT) to the original DE Wiki authors for you did not write the article yourself in the first place. I strongly suggest you to write the article in your own words before you resubmit the article next. You could find how to PATT here.
  2. Wiki sister projects: DE Wiki is one of sister projects and every sister project has its own guidelines and policies. What accepted in DE Wiki might not be accepted as a stand alone page in EN Wiki. In your case, the article was accepted in its current form in DE Wiki is not accepted in EN Wiki, which lead us to the next point.
  3. Reading like a book - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where information is gathered from WP:independent reliable sources and summaries the important points to form the content of the article. You article has lots of bullet points, to me it more than half of the article reads like as set of power point slides. There are a few related articles in EN Wiki (assessment as class C (class FA, FL and GA are considered well written articles) for your reference for your current draft needs to rework. They are Ultimate tensile strength, Tensile structure and Tensile structure. And here are two GA articles for your perusal Earth and Planet.
  4. So far you have only made seven edits (I am not sure you have edited Wikipedia before where you use an IP address), with such few edits, it is is a daunting and difficult task let a alone it is time consuming to create an article. Please visit  "Your first article" where it gives an overview of process and links to relevant pages on topics on explaining info in details.
  5. I have not check on the sources in the article as many are book sources and I dont have access to them at the moment, for such I dont have comment on them. However, please visit the "source" section of the message titled 16:46:49, 28 May 2018 review of submission by Soniaang where I have outlined in a few sets of tables on source types, their definitions and source examples.
  6. Lastly, pls see WP:GOLDENRULE for the fundamental requirements needed by Wikipedia when added content to an article.
Thank you and cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


June 22

Request on 00:44:41, 22 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Protocactus


Hi! I just finished translating the Japanese Wikipedia page for 中二病 (Chūnibyō) into English, and after issues with an existing English page's redirection, ended up publishing it as a draft this way. However, it seems to have been declined on the basis of notability. This is something I find strange, as the page both already exists in the Japanese Wiki, and has already been translated into over 6 languages (ex: Italian, Turkish, Chinese) as of now. This is my first time submitting a translation of an article, so I'm not too sure about the standard protocol, but I would like to either have this decision reevaluated with this in mind, or the reasoning for behind why an article would be accepted in one language but its translation be rejected in another. If this was a mistake, I'd also like to know how to deal with a situation like this in the future.

Thank you!

..a (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protocactus Hi Greetings to you. Each Wikipedia sister project have their own policies and guidelines. What is deem acceptable for an article in mainspace might not be viewed in the same light as for another Wikipedia sister project. From my experiences, EN Wiki has the strictest guidelines on notability requirements. Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article for info on how to create an article in EN Wiki. Lastly, if you are not the original author JP Wiki page, you need to pay proper the attribution to them. Pls see WP:PATT on how to do so. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01:02:08, 22 June 2018 review of submission by Syed Shahryar Raza Abidi


Syed Shahryar Raza Abidi (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allama Syed shahryar raza abidi (Urdu: علامہ سیّد شہریار رضا عابدی ‬‎) is an Islamic scholar from Karachi Pakistan. Now a days he is a resident Aalim in Masom Islamic Center Of Chicago. .[9] He is resident Aalim at Masom Imambargah. He was born in 25 feburary 1965 in karachi Pakistan.

Lectures in Pakistan: Allama Syed Shahryar Raza Abidi has delivered lectures in so many cities of pakistan such as karachi, islamabad, sukkar, multan, lahore etc

lectures in foreign coutries. Allama Syed Shahryar Raza Abidi has also recited lectures in so many countries such as: . India . Oman . United States of America . Norway . Belgium . Bahrain . Congo . Uganda . Dubai

External links . http://www.shiaviews.com/ . https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN1ClvPfObiJunuSOy71xvQ . https://www.facebook.com/allama.shahryar.raza.abidi/

See also Arif Hussain Hussaini Mufti Jafar Hussain Syed Jawad Naqvi Talib Jauhari Shia Ulema Council

Hi Syed Shahryar Raza Abidi. This page is a place to ask questions about drafts, not to post their contents. If you are trying to ask why User:Syed Shahryar Raza Abidi/sandbox/Syed Shahryar Raza Abidi has twice been declined, the answer is on your talk page and in the big pink boxes at the top of the draft. The links you have included to Facebook and YouTube do nothing to demonstrate the subject's notability (suitability for inclusion in the encyclopedia). Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn, where everyone can write about themselves. It is not for advertising, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:35:48, 22 June 2018 review of submission by Jana.Svacinova

Hi, I would like to request a submit of an article I have created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Biosynthesis_Therapy. I have added both internal and external links to proof the reliability of the text as well as the explanation why it should published on the Talk page. The article already has its langugage version in Czech https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosynt%C3%A9za_(psychoterapie) and German https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosynthese_(Psychotherapie). Thank you in advance for a review of this article once again. Best regards, Jana

Jana.Svacinova (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Jana.Svacinova#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jana.Svacinova: Thank you for your declaration. If you are not employed in public relations and marketing, then perhaps you should be. Draft:Biosynthesis Therapy was deleted for being exclusively advertising or promotion, containing nothing that would be of use to an encyclopedia.
Because it is currently deleted, resubmitting and re-reviewing it is not in the scope of this help desk. The essay Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? outlines what you can do about speedy deletion.
Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the Czech Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. Also the existence of an article doesn't necessarily mean it should exist, it could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. Thus arguing that the topic already has a Czech version and a German version will carry no weight in the question of whether it should have an English version. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:04:14, 22 June 2018 review of submission by Robiriondo


Robiriondo (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope you are doing well. How can I request an article to be crated here for this page: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Learning_Department" - it refers to the Machine Learning Department at Carnegie Mellon University - Main Website: https://www.ml.cmu.edu

Thank you kindly in advance,

Roberto

Hi Robiriondo. Articles may be requested at requested articles.
Wikipedia usually doesn't accept articles about subdivisions of universities (such as departments, faculties, schools, institutes, etc.) except for law schools and medical schools. One can find some articles about departments (about 50 in the United States), but either no one has gotten around yet to merging/deleting them, or they're about departments that have made an exceptional contribution to their field.
What sort of contribution would qualify? If the field of AI had long been divided into two well-recognized camps, the CMU school of thought and, say, the MIT school of thought, then the two departments that defined or revolutionized the field might be notable (qualify for inclusion as stand alone articles). Otherwise departments of CMU should be covered within Carnegie Mellon University. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:31:34, 22 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by SazidKabir


I'm currently working on this article. But when I'm submitting it for review it has been cancelled because of not having enough source link mentioned. As a newbie, it's hard for me to understand wikipedia's requirements. Hope, an assistant will clearify this problem.Sazid 15:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)SAZID

Sazid 15:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

SazidKabir Hi Thank your for the question above. If you click on the blue highlighted texts in the grey panel housed in the pink/salmon colour box on top of Draft:Maurice West, they will lead you another pages where details information of the said topics.
Sources that are from a reliable and independent from the subject (click on blue texts to find out more info) are considered "secondary and tertiary sources" which are the types of sources are required from Wikipedia for verification. Twitters, FB, homepages, IMBD, blogs, any user generated content/sites, interviews piece and etc primary sources which could not be used to established the subject notability. Please see below tables on source types and the associated definitions. One thing to bear in mind, if a subject is not notable, no amount of editing and prose would grant subject a page in Wikipedia. Please see the DJ notability requirement guidelines here - WP:MUSICBIO. If the subject meets the notability requirement then the content claimed need to support be supported with signification coverage.


In short - subject needs to meet notability requirements with significant in dept coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic where sources would be verified to merit a page in Wikipedia mainspace.


Topic Explanation Examples/Info
Reliable source A reliable source is a source that provides a thorough, well-reasoned theory, argument, discussion and based on strong evidence, high-quality with with fact-checking and accuracy that has been published in reputable, well-regarded academic/mainstream presses.
Independent source Independent source means the content is not written by subject, anyone is affiliated with the subject or paid by the subject and the sourced content is not deriave from the subject's website and not a press release.
  • official website
  • press release
  • not written by subject, paid by the subject or affiliated with the subject
Verifiability Reader able to check the content is not made up where by reliale cited source in the article is attributed and coud be verifed.
  • All content must be verifiable and the burden to demostrate such verifiability lies with the editor who added/changed the content.
Type Explanation Examples
Primary A primary source provides direct or first hand evidence/knowledge about an event, work of art and account from people who are directly involved in a situation or a material written by such persons.
  • scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results
  • proceedings of meetings, conferences and symposia, speeches, oral histories
  • diaries, autobiographies, letters, Internet communications on email
  • government documents, original documents (such as birth certificate or trial transcripts) , census statistics, legal documents
  • eyewitness accounts, results of experiments, statistical data
  • archives and manuscript material, historic treateis
  • interviews, surveys, fieldwork, map, testimonies, case notes
  • original works art, photographs, audio recordings, video recordings, films
  • memo, diaries, autobiographies, personal narratives, plays, poems
  • data sets, technical reports, patent, surveys and polls
  • raw data sets,experimental research results, the periodic table
Secondary A secondary source gives information about primary source or original information or other secondary resources , which analyse, describe, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
  • biographical works, histories studies (may also be tertiary)
  • newspaper and popular magazine articles (may also be primary, such as interview pieces and etc.)
  • Textbooks, dictionaries and encyclopedias (may also be tertiary)
  • review articles and literature reviews, works of criticism, interpretation, commentaries
  • analyzes journal articles and research papers based on primary sources
Tertiary Tertiary sources provide overviews that index, abstract, complie or digest the primary and secondary sources. It presents the summaries content primary and /or secondary sources.
  • almanacs, fact books, chronologies, guidebooks, manuals
  • dictionaries and encyclopedias
  • handbooks and data compilations
  • note: Wikipedia can NOT be the source. Pls see WP:NOTRS - "Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE)".
Subject Primary Secondary Tertiary
Art Sculpture Article critiquing the sculture Encyclopedic article on the sculptor
History Diary of a prisoner of Iraq war Book on the Iraq war List of battles sites
Science Original research on nano technology Review of the research nano technology Nano technology abstracts
Writing an article in Wikipedia could be challenging at times, thus, do visit WP:Your First Article to familiar what are required and I would recommend you to start editing on other pages first, like you have done on Apeiruss, Zooel Morshed and Armada Music, for some months which will serve you on prerequisite for creating an article. Thank you and cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:46:24, 22 June 2018 review of submission by Emc100


Just wondering why I cannot submit my draft for review. What am I doing wrong? Thanks!

Emc100 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emc100 Hi Good day, your article is here - Draft:Beachcomber Hot Tubs, which you have yet to submit for reviewed for such it has not been declined. To submit for review, just press "submit your draft for review" on the grey panel on top of the draft page. However, at the current stage, the subject (Beachcomber Hot Tubs) is deemed not notable as per Wikipedia ogranisation notability guidelines (pls click on the blue highlighted texts to find out more info). The sources you provided
  1. Pools marking - see here - does not considered reliable source as it is a marketing site.
  2. Digital Journal - see here is a press release (primary source)
  3. Market Wired - see here is another press release (primary source) and marketing piece from Beachomber Hot Tubs personal.


Subject needs to meet notability requirements with significant in dept coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic where sources would be verified to merit a page in Wikipedia mainspace.


Please see the post/message one above yours Here, title "Request on 15:31:34, 22 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by SazidKabir", on what is needed for a page to be accepted on notability, types of sources, significant coverage, verification requirements.

Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

02:17:38, 23 June 2018 review of submission by 2405:204:3484:32C:A4F0:E5C1:81D1:B70


2405:204:3484:32C:A4F0:E5C1:81D1:B70 (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:04:42, 23 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Amanjakhad


I'm working as a digital marketer for a startup named Bonphul Air Products. I wanted to post an article on Bonphul Air Products mentioning it's brief history as the product is revolutionary and health-related. It's not an advertisement, I just want to describe the values and beliefs, The story behind the organization. But tried to submit my article two times both times I got rejected. My Article (Please suggest changes):

Collapsing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Bonphul Air Products Pvt. Ltd. is a New Delhi-headquartered company co-founded by Prodyut Bora and Narendra Bisht in July 2017. It was set up to create innovative air-quality products that are required to address challenges posed by the air-pollution problems of the world.
Bonphul Air Products
Company typePrivate Limited
IndustryAir Quality
Founded19th July, 2017 in New Delhi, National Capital Region (NCR), India
FounderProdyut Bora (CEO), Narendra Bisht (COO)
Headquarters
New Delhi
,
India
ProductsOxyMax 10 LPM, OxyMax 20 LPM, OxyMax 50 LPM
Websitehttp://www.bonphulapl.com/

History

Narendra Bisht met Prodyut Bora while running his company Respirotech, and convinced him to join the company.[1] Prodyut Bora, in turn, convinced Narendra Bisht that the company should widen it's scope of activities, and proposed a new name: Bonphul Respirotech became Bonphul Medsys.

Formation

Bonphul Air Products was incorporated on 19 July 2017.[2]

Investments

The company's initial share capital was Rs 1 Lakh (INR One Hundred Thousand). Subsequently, the company's share capital was raised to Rs 2 Lakhs.

2017 Dec: Bonphul Air Products received seed-capital from Faridabad-based investor Satish Bhatia, who valued the company at Rs 1 crore and picked up 10% equity for Rs 10 Lakhs.[3]

2018 May: Bonphul Air Products raised angel-investment from Rx Infotech and Karmesh Global Technologies. They valued the company at Rs 20 Crores (INR Two Hundred Million) and signed up to take on 10% equity for Rs 2 Crores (INR Twenty Million).[4]

Products

Bonphul has developed a product: an oxygen optimizer for commercial and residential purposes. Branded OxyMax, the oxygen optimizer solves two very critical problems: one, the oxygen content in the outdoor air in Indian cities is very low, and two, wherever there are men or animals indoor in an enclosed space--whether home or office--there is a progressive decrease in oxygen level in the ambient air.

Air Quality Business

Oxygen Optimizers

Pure air is supposed to have about 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen and 1% other gases. But oxygen levels in cities are falling.[5] According to Bonphul Air Products, the outdoor oxygen--level in Indian cities like Delhi is 18%, indoor it is often less.[6] On the other hand, the US Government's OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) defines as "oxygen deficient" any atmosphere that contains less than 19.5 percent oxygen.[7]

Bonphul OxyMax raises indoor oxygen from existing level to 21%.[8]

Models

Bonphul OxyMax comes in 2 ranges:

Residential & Light Commercial Range

- 10 LPM (litres per minute)

- 20 LPM

Heavy Commercial Range

- 50 LPM

Technology

The OxyMax range of products works on pressure swing absorption (PSA) technology.

Geographical Presence

Bonphul Air Product's registered office is in New Delhi corporate office in Gurgaon and factory in Faridabad.

Corporate Governance (Directors)

Executive Directors
1. Prodyut Bora CEO
2. Narendra Bisht COO
3. Atul Gupta Director - Finance
Non-Executive Directors
1. Satish Bhatia Director
Independent Directors
1. Mukesh Khare Director
2. Prarthana Borah Director

References

  1. ^ "History - Bonphul Medsys". Bonphul Medsys. Retrieved 2018-06-14.
  2. ^ "BONPHUL AIR PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED - Company, directors and contact details | Zauba Corp". www.zaubacorp.com. Retrieved 2018-06-14.
  3. ^ "Lab to the Market - Bonphul Air Products, Maker of India's First Oxygen Optimizer, Raises Seed Capital". startupsuccessstories.in. Retrieved 2018-06-14.
  4. ^ "Clean-tech firm Bonphul Air Products raises angel funding". VCCircle. 2018-05-24. Retrieved 2018-06-14.
  5. ^ "Global Oxygen Levels Are Dropping In Major Cities And Oceans, From A High Of 35% In Geological History; How To Measure Oxygen Levels In Air Yourself". AGR Daily 60 Second News Bites. 2014-08-25. Retrieved 2018-06-14.
  6. ^ "Bonphul introduces oxygen optimizer for better healthcare". Retrieved 2018-06-14.
  7. ^ "Shipyard Employment eTool > Confined or Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres: Oxygen-Deficient or Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres". www.osha.gov. Retrieved 2018-06-14.
  8. ^ "Hospitality Biz India :: Bonphul Air Products unveils Oxygen Optimiser". www.hospitalitybizindia.com. Retrieved 2018-06-14.


Amanjakhad (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amanjakhad,  On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see your talk page message here. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No way a WP:MILL startup is going to pass WP:NCORP. You are a marketer and this is marketing. . Sorry please don't waste our time. Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:15, 23 June 2018 review of submission by Aliaalchalabi

  • [[User:Template:Aliaalchalbi|Template:Aliaalchalbi]] ([[User talk:Template:Aliaalchalbi|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Template:Aliaalchalbi|contribs]]) ([{{safesubst:fullurl:User talk:Template:Aliaalchalbi|action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&summary=You+have+a+new+reply+on+the+%5B%5BWikipedia%3AWikiProject+Articles+for+creation%2FHelp+desk%7Chelp+desk%5D%5D%21&preload=Template:AFCHD/u/preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=&preloadparams%5B%5D=17%3A41%3A15%2C+23+June+2018+review+of+submission+by+%5B%5B%3ATemplate%3AAliaalchalbi%5D%5D}} TB])

Hello,

I recently submitted the page "The Sumaira Foundation for NMO" and you denied it on the principle that it was not neutral, and the sources were produced by The Sumaira Foundation.

I am confused as to what sources were produced by the foundation, since none of the citations or hyperlinks were in any way affiliated in a non-neutral standpoint with the foundation. The articles linked simply talked about the foundation, but were not created by it.

I would really appreciate some feedback since this was a neutral page creation. Aliaalchalabi (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Aliaalchalabi#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:15:40, 23 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Yevrowl


Hi! I ask for help in finalizing the article for publication.

Yevrowl (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yevrowl Good day. You draft article has been reviewed by RetroCraft314. Please see the reviewer's comment and the note on the pink/salmon box on top of the draft page. By the way you need to provide significant coverage independent, reliable sources to establish the notability of the said subject. Please see the post/message few posts above yours Here, title "Request on 15:31:34, 22 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by SazidKabir", on what is needed for a page to be accepted on notability, types of sources, significant coverage, verification requirements. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! The article was created by analogy with the existing one: Police captain. Thanks for the answer. Yevrowl (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

00:19:00, 24 June 2018 review of submission by Sparktorn

Hello, could anyone please help to add on anything to this political ideology and make it "acceptable" for Wikipedia standards? Cheers. Sparktorn (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sparktorn - You'll need more, and stronger, sources if you want to show this is a serious political philosophy. At present, you've three, partisan and POV, blogs and an author who is described on the German Wikipedia as an "activist" and doesn't appear to be either a political philosopher or an historian. That's not nearly enough to show this is a serious political position that has been discussed in credible and reliable sources. As a personal aside, from your description, it doesn't sound very like a serious philosophy. KJP1 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:49:20, 24 June 2018 review of submission by Srunger72


Srunger72 (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]



I am new to creating a page -- Shirtless Violinist (Matthew Olshefski). I received feedback from three reviewers and made changes. People responded within a day to those re-submissions. However, I have been waiting 5 days tor a response to my last submission. I also received another noticed that sounded like my submission was approved in several categories. But I see no change.

Can you look to see the status of my submission and let me know what happens next in the process or what I may need to do. I am really in the dark.

We get to about 75% of submissions within a couple days, but it can take 3 weeks due to the 1000 page backlog. Easy declines often happen quickly but more complex analysis may take longer. Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:52, 24 June 2018 review of submission by 2405:204:3484:32C:CFB:ABAD:1304:44C

2405:204:3484:32C:CFB:ABAD:1304:44C (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you haven’t got any sources. Sources are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. They demonstrate Notability and they allow readers to Verify the content. Without them, you’ve not got an article. KJP1 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:31:40, 24 June 2018 review of submission by Chezzy79



I'm having trouble understanding what you would consider to be a "neutral" source... I have referred to other already-approved Wikipedia articles when writing this Jon Kuhn article, such as Jack Storms, Gary Beecham, and this Jon Kuhn article contain far more neutral, verifiable, and unbiased sources. Also, I have found Jon Kuhn's mention here [[2]] and that was not added by me, as you can see. However, it clearly shows the need for Wikipedia to have an entry on Jon Kuhn, and most of the artists on that page ALREADY WITH Wikipedia entries, are far less notable artist than Jon Kuhn with much less verifiable contents in their pages. I do not understand the basis of this Jon Kuhn article being rejected, when these articles entries in Wikipedia.

I also would think that PBS, Smithsonian, Henry Ford Museum, etc. are more than credible sources to be used to indicate the notability of the artist, but as a contributor, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you wouldn't agree, and show me an example of something you would consider worthy for Wikipedia.

Chezzy79 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chezzy79. You asked this question at User talk:The Mighty Glen and received a good answer. To elaborate:
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they have been in any way "approved". It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
Sources must be reliable, and the bulk of an article about Kuhn should be based on sources that are independent of Kuhn (i.e. not written by or supplied by him, not from a gallery selling his work, not a press release, not a primary source interview). I've added a couple potential sources to a "further reading" section of the draft.
Sources need not be neutral, but a Wikipedia article must be written from a neutral point of view. In other words, it must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The draft may not say in Wikipedia's voice things like "renowned as one of the world's leading", "the pioneer behind the now-popular technique", and "Light is an important element in Kuhn's work". Opinions need to be attributed, such as "According to curator so-and-so, ..." or "Art critic so-and-so writes, ..." Any original research does not belong.
Kuhn holds the copyright to his 3D sculptures. To publish a photograph of one requires a license from him. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for how to do that. The number of photos you have uploaded attributed to yourself, and your single-minded purpose at Wikipedia of writing about Kuhn suggests that you have a close connection to him that may facilitate obtaining and documenting the necessary permissions. That would be wonderful. We love photos that we can legally use. It also suggests that you have a conflict of interest, in which case you should declare that connection and really shouldn't be editing an article about him. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:59:12, 24 June 2018 review of submission by Audrey1125

I would like to know why the page "The Civility of Albert Cashier (musical!" I put up for publishing has been declined. Thank you! Audrey (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey1125 - The main problem is sourcing, as the reviewer indicated. You've removed the 19-odd from a music uploading site, none of which were reliable, but you're still some way from "significant coverage". Of the five you've now got, three are plain listings and one's not independent. That leaves one, Source 4. That's fine, but it's only one source. You need greater coverage to demonstrate Notability. A few more reviews like 4 and you're there. As a secondary issue, the plot summary is too long. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

04:09:03, 25 June 2018 review of submission by Joanneleung36


we have uploaded more media reference about transgender resource center, please check if this help. Also since the media reports about Transgender Resource Center are usually written in Chinese while English reports are usually concentrated to 1 to 2 media only. Therefore, we want to ask if it is ok to add some Chinese media report so as to have a better sourcing.

Joanneleung36 (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joanneleung36 Sources from any languages are permissible in Wikipedia. If you would find "reliable" sources from major newspapers (be it in Chinese or other languages) that talk "directly" about the subject that would be helpful. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:54:47, 25 June 2018 review of submission by Fernanda Liendo


Hi, I'm sending this paragraph for review since I'm not sure if the information I've written and the references comply with Wikipedia's rules. Fernanda Liendo (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to post a copy of the draft, the link Draft:PHP Tools for Visual Studio is sufficient
PHP Tools for Visual Studio
Developer(s)DEVSENSE s.r.o.
Initial releaseMarch 2012; 12 years ago (2012-03)
Stable release
1.28.10846 / May 18, 2018; 6 years ago (2018-05-18)
Written inC#
Operating systemMicrosoft Windows
Available inEnglish, Spanish, German, Japanese, others.
TypePHP IDE
LicenseProprietary

PHP Tools for Visual Studio is a commercial extension targeting Microsoft Visual Studio, which adds the ability to work with PHP programming language. PHP Tools integration allows software developers to create and manage projects (computer programs, web sites, web services and web apps), debug and maintain the source code.

PHP Tools provides a code editor for PHP that supports IntelliSense (the code completion component), code refactoring and code validation.[1] It has an integrated debugger that works for local and remote debugging.[2] Additionally, it includes built-in tools, such as integrated support for Composer packages, testing through PHPUnit, support for PHP template engines such as Smarty, on-the-fly code validation, automatic installation and configuration of PHP or deployment through SFTP, FTP, FTPS, File System or Web Deploy which is used mainly to deploy to Azure.[3]

Most of the features in Visual Studio are extended with PHP Tools, such as HTML, CSS, JavaScript or TypeScript support. All the editions are supported including Community Editions. However, it does not support Express Editions[4] [5]

See also

Phalanger (compiler)

References

References

  1. ^ Alexander Schmidt (2013-11-19). "PHP-Entwicklung mit Visual Studio 2013 und TFS". Coding Freaks. Retrieved 2018-06-25.
  2. ^ Dave Ramel (2017-08-23). "New Extension Supports PHP Development in Visual Studio 2017". Visual Studio Magazine. Retrieved 2018-06-25.
  3. ^ Dave Smith (2016-04-26). "Using Microsoft Visual Studio as PHP IDE with the PHP Tools extension". PHPClasses. Retrieved 2017-03-30.
  4. ^ One Code Team Blog (2014-12-10). "Differences between Visual Studio Community Edition and Express Editions". MSDN. Retrieved 2018-06-01.
  5. ^ Vlad Feinstein (2015-07-30). "Visual studio Express Edition vs Community". Stack Overflow. Retrieved 2018-06-01.

Category:Integrated development environments

Category:PHP
Hi Fernanda Liendo. The cited sources are not reliable:
  • Coding Freaks is a self-published blog.
  • Visual Studio Magazine might be reliable, but reads like a press release, bringing its independence into question.
  • The portion of MSDN that is being referenced is the reader comments section, which has no reputation for accuracy or fact checking.
  • PHPClasses and Stack Overflow are user-generated content, not subject to editorial oversight or academic peer review.
Wikipedia is not for marketing, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:17:45, 25 June 2018 review of submission by Grapkin


I did not understand some of the feedback I received from the editor: 

- Subject may not be notable enough and better references needed. I included reviews from The New York Times of her books.  Wondering how to improve with other references?

- Too many external links. Do I need to move links to a section below rather than include in body of the text? Will this help/be enough?

- Need to use more formal tone and eliminate laudatory phrases. If I take out words like "award-winning" etc., will that be enough?

Thanks for any and all feedback you can provide. GraceGrapkin (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Grapkin (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put links in the body of the article. Relevent links can be in an External Links section. If you are linking to something with a wikipedia page you should wikilink with topic without the spaces. Definantely trim laudatory phrases. This is not an ad. Legacypac (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

04:31:22, 26 June 2018 review of submission by Vannacharal


My Draft page getting Mithun Rajakumar rejected even though i have given proof and reliable reference..I need help to get approval of the draft page Vannacharal (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vannacharal Greetings. The comments have given on the pink boxes on the draft page. The subject has yet to demonstrate the notability as the sources do not support it. Significant coverage from independent reliable sources (secondary source) are need where by the content is written about subject are "directly" and not merely passing mentioned.
  1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com - Kaala movie reciew - is about the movie and not the subject
  2. You tube - You tube are primary source.
  3. Wikipedia - Wikipedia can not be the source -s see [[WP:CIRCULAR].
  4. http://tamil.thehindu.com/cinema/tamil-cinema/ - is an interview piece - a primary source
  5. IMBD - User generated source (primary)
  6. www.deccanchronicle.com (The TAmil Nadu you have not seen) - article is not about the subject

Pls see actor notability requirements from Wikipedia and see Here, title "Request on 15:31:34, 22 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by SazidKabir", on what is needed for a page to be accepted on notability, types of sources, significant coverage, verification requirements. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:33:23, 26 June 2018 review of submission by AkshayChhibber

I would like to ask the help desk as to why precisely my article was rejected for the submission. Seems that all the valid information about the article was provided along with the references. The references provided are the only ones I have and can also be verified since these are the awards and recognitions won by uCertify. Apart from the 1 reference provided is from PRWeb which is again an online press release. Please explain in detail as to how this article can be edited in order to get it accepted for the submission. AkshayChhibber (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed on the Draft Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:42:34, 26 June 2018 review of submission by Techcherio


hello, I need help because my article seems to rejected, I received this feedback, "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." Techcherio (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:51:40, 26 June 2018 review of submission by DmitryXII


I've come to a bump as my submission was denied for the second time. I have stated that I have a conflict of interest, and as such may not be the best person to remove the "reads like an advertising" flaw. However seeing as the similarly-referenced OMAS SRL. article, and the two companies are similar in the interest shown by the community on both brands is similar. I would greatly appreciate any help in making this article more neutral and factual. DmitryXII (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:44:14, 26 June 2018 review of submission by Nikhiljain founder


Nikhiljain founder (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=847569337"