Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 692

Archive 685

←

Archive 690

Archive 691

Archive 692

Archive 693

Archive 694

Archive 695

Approval of a profile article

With the feedback of the fellow reviewers, as per my knowledge I have followed all rules of wiki and would like to submit my 1st article in wiki, I have collected all valid source and references to validate my article. Please help me publish the article from Sandbox to wiki. RAGZU (talk) or guide me what more is required for this article to be published. its been more than 2 months now that i have left my sandbox to be published. awaiting a quick response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAGZU (talk • contribs) 06:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse. I've added a {{user sandbox}} template to make it easy for you to submit it for review when you think it is ready. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A reviewer will be able to give feedback after you submit the draft, but I would recommend that before you submit it you try to tidy it up. There are a number of obvious problems, including:

• misplaced external links
• references to Wikipedia, contrary to WP:Circular
• malformatting - please read the WP:Manual of Style

--David Biddulph (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Further points I noticed on a quick look, RAGZU:

• Words like "struggle" and "breakthrough" are not neutral, and should not be used. Nor should unsourced statements about the subject's mential state and motiviation ("Lack of opportunity triggered him")
• Some of the draft is in note form, not full sentences.
• "Due to circumstances" is meaningless, and should either be expanded (with a citation) or omitted.
• It veers between present and past tense for no obvious reason.

Please have a look at WP:BLP. --ColinFine (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Display??

Hello, I am editing a series of pages and was wondering how I could get the little box that sometimes appears in the infobox or bottom of the page that says the next page in that series? It sounds confusing but if you look the page 1, at the top of the infobox, it allows you to click and go to page 2,3,4,5 etc. How would I get this? Thanks. Goveganplease (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Goveganplease. There are different ways to do it depending on the subject and possible use of an infobox or other templates. Different templates have different code and many don't have the feature. Which page series do you have in mind? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding PrimeHunter, I was wanting to do it with the entire series of Chinese radical pages.Goveganplease (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Goveganplease: I have used {{Succession links}} in {{Infobox Kangxi radical}}.[1] See e.g. Radical 1, Radical 2, Radical 213, Radical 214 (the last radical). Other pages wil automatically update after a while, or right away if they are purged (I purged the four examples). I didn't know a convenient way to display the symbol from the number so only the number is displayed. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Goveganplease: I now know how to display the radicals as numbered Unicode symbols but I don't know anything about Chinese or what would be appropriate to display. Should the link to Radical 214 in Radical 213 for example display as one of these options: 214, 214 (⿕), 214 ⿕, 214 (⿕), 214 ⿕, ⿕. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they have to be displayed as symbols. I just wanted each page to link to the next in succession. Goveganplease (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

New Political Candidate sourcing

There is a new political candidate in Little Rock, AR running for congress. There are very few stories about her now, as most of the press coverage in a small state like Arkansas is devoted more to the actual goings on by the current house member. Are there any suggestions as to how to find better sources or improve the credibility of the ones given?

Eric Jemahfouz (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The smallness of the state is irrelevant. If she is elected or receives significant coverage like Jon Ossoff despite losing then she is notable enough for an article. My suggestion would be to have the article in the draftspace and then it can be published when enough sources are present. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jemahfouz. Please begin by reading our notability guideline for politicians. Our general practice is that unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia biographies, unless coverage in reliable sources is significant, ongoing and far beyond what is common for political candidates. A better way to cover such candidates is to write an article titled something like "2018 Congressional election in the 2nd district of Arkansas" that would neutrally cover all of the candidates in the race. Then, a redirect can be created, so that anyone typing that candidate's name in the search box will be taken to that article about the race. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I need help posting because of conflict of interest

Hi My boss's bio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hotez has a lot of flags because it needs 2nd party citations etc. Another problem is that it is very poorly laid out in my opinion. I have drafted a new bio. Could someone review it and post it for me? I haven't added all the citations to my draft but if someone can review it and post it I will then add the citations. Thanks in advance for any help! Nwolf1470 Nwolf1470 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. After you have read about conflict of interest and paid editing, the place to suggest changes to the article is Talk:Peter Hotez, supported by reliable sources. There is no point in anybody trying to review it without sources, as verifiability is one of the main pillars of Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks David! What about if I posted my draft in the Talk section and ask someone to let me know where I need citations and any other feedback? I'm adding citations now but that would be very helpful. Nwolf1470 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello,, Nwolf1470. If you're talking about putting in citations after you've written the text, then I fear you're going about it backwards. You need to start with the citations: forget every single thing you know about the subject and write a summary of only what is in the sources. This is even more crucial when you have inside knowledge of the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Can not get aproved my article

Hello, I made an article about music festival. Once it was declined, and I reedited it, and now it has been waiting for new revision for 18 days. Should I still wait, or could make some steps in order to get it published? Thank you!

The link to the draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Avant_Festival

All the best,

Max Makasinych (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you resolve the issues that caused it be declined last time? The backlog for review is quite long currently, so you can't do anything to speed it up. Just make sure you have added as much information as possible, in an appropriate tone. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Rewording Draft:Republic (crowdfunding platform) to be more neutral and less commercial

I'm working on the aforementioned article, with COI as a paid agent for the subject.

My most recent submission is rejected on grounds of being biased and commercial. I can understand that I introduce biases into the article that I cannot be aware of. I would love to hear about how to rephrase the draft to make it less biased and less promotional.

Thank you all very much :D It feels so nice to learn my way around Wikipedia. I feel like I will try to contribute to Wikipedia more, now that this avenue has opened up for me.

Vinhloc30796 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There are tags on the page

There are many tags on the page I have been working on and do not understand what the problem is and how to get the tags off. It looks really bad!

Page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Tate

Thank you Cheri Brown (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cheri Brown: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see three tags on the page. The first one indicates that the biography you have written needs additional citations to verify the information given. The second indicates that most of the citations/references given are from primary sources; that is, sources directly related to the person being written about, such as their own words, own website, or anything from them directly(such as an interview transcript). Please click on and read WP:PRIMARY; on Wikipedia, primary sources are only acceptable in certain circumstances, and they do not establish notability. Only independent reliable sources from third parties are acceptable for establishing notability. This would be things like news reports, independent reviews, or anything not authored by someone associated with the article subject.

The last tag indicates that someone believes that you have a close connection to the article subject. I haven't yet done enough research to know what that is, but if you are in any way associated with Kent Tate, it is what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest(please read about it at WP:COI). It is usually difficult(though not impossible) for those who have a conflict of interest to write objectively and with the neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires. If you have a conflict of interest, you need to declare that, either on the article talk page, or your user page. If you work for Kent Tate, or are otherwise paid to edit Wikipedia, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to read and comply with the paid editing policy at WP:PAID.

In order to remove the yellow tags from the article, those issues need to be resolved.

I apologize for giving you lots of information, but I hope this helps you. If you have further questions, please add them to this section. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I would add that the notability guidelines for artists can be found at WP:ARTIST. All articles on artists must meet at least one of the guidelines listed there. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note that CB has also asked about this at Wikipedia:Help desk#Flags on page - unable to communicate with users. I am not complaining as I think CB is trying to get as much info as possible. I just want to make sure that those responding don't wind up giving conflicting answers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

account ranking

Hello everyone, I have joined Wikipedia 4 days ago and I wondering how long it takes to become a full editor i.e no waiting time or being able to revert changes. Is this gained through good edits, or just time spent editing Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Penguin2233 (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, Penguin2233. You became a full editor when you began contributing to Wikipedia. After at least four days and at least ten edits, you will become autoconfirmed, which will give you additional powers, such as the ability to edit semi-protected articles and create new articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Special:Log/Penguin2233 shows your account is only 3 days old so it takes another day. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Your help for me is highly appreciated. Penguin2233 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What is a 'correct' article?

What generally classifies as a "correct" article?Dylan Smithson (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dylan Smithson and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your question seems to involve a category error. Wikipedia articles are as "correct" as we are able to make them. They are never considered completely finished nor beyond possibility of improvement. Articles that pass "Good article" or "Featured article" review are closer to ideal than most run-of-the-mill articles, but may still be improved. There are attempts at articles that may well be considered incorrect: ones whose subject does not meet the standard of notability or ones that are either unsupported by references or whose references do not verify the statements in the article. Usually, these inadequate articles will be tagged for their deficiencies or even deleted.

Does this help answer your question? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)