Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

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

October 25

Vert Skating - Articles for creation

Hello, I got a comment saying that (Vert Skating) should be merged with existing one, I just wanted to let you know that (ver skateboarding) its with a skateboarding, usually a piece of wood with 4 wheels. and (vert skating) is with skates usually 4 wheels per skate, two totally different sports. please let me know. thanks.

>> Comment: Consider merging with the existing article as necessary. Mephistophelian (contact) 01:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Vert_Skating

XK8ER (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the existing article wasn't meant to be Vert skateboarding but Aggressive inline skating which has a section "Vert".

The draft's main problem seems to be its dearth of reliable sources. The current references either aren't reliable (such as the photo blog) or they say very little on vert skating beyond a dictionary definition. Huon (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I see, I have edited the Aggressive inline skating page for the vert section because people think its part of it but its not. Skateparks usually have Vert Ramps and people think that its the same sport as park or street skating. Since there is a section for Vert Skateboarding there should be also a section for Vert Skating and also one for bikes Vert BMX all tree sports are similar, but riding a vert ramp with a bike is totally different than with skates. If you need me to fax documentation on this I will, online sources are very hard because this sport is very rare and you usually see Vert ramps with skateboards and not with skates. XK8ER (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources need not be available online; you can just as well use the print editions of newspapers or skating magazines as refereces as long as you provide sufficient bibliographical information to allow the readers to identify the source. However, if vert skating is so rare that it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources, then it isn't considered notable enough by Wikipedia's standards to be the subject of a stand-alone article, and we should instead improve the section within the larger aggressive inline skating article.

As an aside, the vert skateboarding article is not a shining example of what a Wikipedia article should be. Its only reference is a Wikipedia article (and Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source), and it provides mostly vague generalities and a lengthy list of "see also" links. Huon (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the information, I have many different online sources but they seem to be broken links. for example athletes winning x-games medals and its results, http://www.lgactionsports.com/2008/events/asc/res_inlvertf.html as you can see its broken so as a reference can we include "archive.org" urls for verification purposes? http://web.archive.org/web/20081209090451/http://www.lgactionsports.com/2008/events/asc/res_inlvertf.html XK8ER (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The Internet Archive is considered to reliably reproduce what the website originally said. In fact the {{cite web}} template that's used to nicely format web sources even has "archiveurl=" and "archivedate=" parameters for this very purpose. But I don't think the original website you provided is all that helpful: It's a primary source, the competition's organizers reporting on their own competition. Has that competition received some secondary coverage, such as newspaper articles? That would be much better. Huon (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

October 26

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott Jay Kenyon

First, A big thanks to Huon for his detailed and very helpful reply - it is very interesting and instructive to see how this process works and I hope I get it now.

I have two questions. When replying to a thread in this section of talk is it ok to add via edit or is there another way to keep the threads together? I have been starting a new thread with each new set of questions and I see that Huon was able to paste them together.

Also, I have been able to edit some of the article along the lines Huon suggested. It would be very helpful if the first parts - the opening, Career, and the first two paragraphs of Scientific Work - could be looked at and critiqued so I can see whether or not I am on the right track and whether the subject is starting to seem notable enough.

Thanks again for your help. Seriouscallersonly (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

When you re-open an older thread via "edit", there's a certain risk that it might be missed - in this case, I think a new thread was entirely appropriate. When the thread you're replying to is quite recent, just editing it may be easier - the last time I simply had to remove the section heading to merge two consecutive sections on the same topic into one. So that's something of a judgement call. If in doubt, starting a new section cannot hurt.

I'm rather busy right now, but I have added the draft to my watchlist and will take a closer look to those paragraphs tomorrow. Huon (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Seriouscallersonly (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I did have another question. Hypervelocity stars have lots of news coverage so they are notable & they have an entry in Wikipedia - does that give the discoverers some notability? I know it is not hard & fast one way or the other but your thoughts would be helpful - thanks! Seriouscallersonly (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I just had a closer look at those sections, and I believe the sources are still problematic. For example, the list of publications is sufficient to see that Kenyon has a h-index of 63 (if one knows how to compute the h-index, which laypersons probably don't know) - but a source that explicitly says "Kenyon has a h-index of 63" and continues "that means he's broadly cited" would be much better. The latter part is currently opinion - I agree with the assessment, but it's still our personal opinion. In general, sources that actually discuss Kenyon in some detail are better than lists of data that mention him.

The coverage of the luminosity problem relies heavily on Kenyon's own papers, with secondary sources cited for claims that a priori aren't related to him. But Offner and McKee mention both Kenyon's discovery of the luminosity problem and his suggested solution - and we should cite them for it, not Kenyon himself. For comparison have a look at Clyde Tombaugh's article: I believe that manages not to cite a single Tombaugh paper and still has sources for his various discoveries. Another article worth a look might be that on Stephen Hawking: It's a featured article, among the best Wikipedia has to offer. It does cite some Hawking papers, but it also offers numerous secondary sources on his research. Of course Hawking is probably the most famous physicist alive and had entire biographies written about him; we cannot expect quite the same for Kenyon. But the article may still serve as an example of what we'd ideally like to have.

The answer to the hypervelocity stars is similar: Their discovery surely gives notability - but it would be better to have a secondary source saying that Kenyon discovered them, not just Kenyon's own paper. The basic idea of Wikipedia's notability is not that you did something important, but that others have acknowledged you did so.

Articles on people with importand publications sometimes have a dedicated "publications" section that lists the person's own papers without using them as references. For someone with as many publications as Kenyon we should probably only list the highlights - his book on symbiotic stars, the luminosity problem paper, the hypervelocity star paper, and so on. Huon (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

October 27

physics

a pendulum is displaced sideward from the vertical and the released.As it swings down toward the vertical axis ,its kenitic energy increases,where does the energy come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.14.183 (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

From the potential energy: The pendulum is displaced along an arc, not just sideward but a little upward as well. But this help desk is for questions about the Articles for creation process. For general knowledge questions, please try the reference desk. Huon (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Walman

I attempted to create a redirect page for Walman and received the message

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Thank you.

But I see no information at that site to explain what I did wrong.

MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolinuts68 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a simplified procedure for requesting redirects; it's at WP:AFC/R (or you can tell the Article Wizard that you want to create a redirect). That doesn't involve as thorough a review as the submission of a new article, and correspondingly it's much faster. However, since "Walman" may have other meanings besides the language, a WP:Disambiguation page seemed more appropriate than a redirect. I have created it. Huon (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Kolinuts, the technical bits do take some learning, but you have successfully identified a good place for a WP:Disambiguation page, which Huon made. I ended up making some related ones and also some links, so folks looking for Wallman, Wollman, and Wolman can get to the right place too. Thanks for pointing this out! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dr._Christopher_L._Snyder

I had written the article below and wanted to see if there is someone I could pay to make it into the correct format so my biography can be included into the Wikipedia. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dr._Christopher_L._Snyder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah2noaa (talk • contribs) 14:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors tend to be volunteers and usually "work" for free; while there are a few editors-for-hire, in general there's no need to offer payment. Furthermore, money tends to create conflicts of interest.

I just had a look at the draft, and there are several problems. Most importantly, The sources don't suffice to establish Snyder's notability. To be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article he must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. Two of the draft's sources are written by Snyder himself (and thus not independent); the other two are directory entries and not considered significant enough. I'm also not quite sure where those directories get their information - parts seem to be user-submitted, which would be unreliable (for example, I believe I could rate him without ever having seen him).

Even if better sources can be found, the draft will have to be rewritten significantly. It reads more like a hagiography than an encyclopedia article - would you expect our article on Niccolò Machiavelli to begin with "Niccolò Machiavelli was a results-oriented politician with a passion for promoting the fortunes of his home town"? That sounds good but ultimately tells us little about the subject (maybe even more about Machiavelli than about a doctor). Claims such as that Snyder "earned a reputation for precision and accuracy" would need a secondary source explicitly making that claim, and better yet, attribution to that source: "When Snyder was hired for a full-time position at the University of Pittsburgh, the Random Pittsburgh Newspaper noted his reputation for precision and accuracy" or something like that. In general, we aim for a neutral point of view, not for an advertisement.

Furthermore, the draft should have inline citations and footnotes to clarify which of the sources supports which of the draft's statements.

I'd be willing to help with the more technical parts such as the footnotes, but I have no idea where to look for better sources; without those not much can be done. Huon (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Combination EMS Service and Departments

References

http://www.naemt.org/Libraries/Member%20Resources%20Documents/Issues%20in%20Staffing%20Emergency%20Medical%20Services-A%20National%20Survey%20of%20Local%20Rural%20and%20Urban%20EMS%20Directors.sflb

http://www.penflexinc.com/Are-Combination-Departments-The-Future-c31.html

You should add those references to the draft; in fact, the draft should be based on such sources. You should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements.

On a more general note, your draft seems based on our combination fire department article, with parts of it literally the same, and other parts with "firefighters" substituted by "EMS" (and with "junior" substituted by "cadet" even where that substitution makes no sense, such as "cadet high school" instead of "junior high school"). Are firefighters and EMS really that similar? Then we might be better off with a section on EMS in the combination fire department article than with a second article that largely says the same as the first. Huon (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

October 28

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hilda the Wicked Witch

Hello,

I wonder about references and citations for the book series Hilda the Wicked Witch. Would links to places like Librarything, Goodreads and e.g. Amazon.com be considered valid?

Thank you

Paulkater (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Amazon definitely is not a reliable source because they have an obvious conflict of interest and no editorial oversight or fact-checking. I believe reviews at Goodreads and Librarything are user-submitted content, which means they aren't reliable by Wikipedia's standards either. Good sources would be reviews published by reputable publishers (and not self-published), such as in newspapers or literary magazines. Kirkus Reviews may be worth a look. Huon (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/INTEGRATION(festival)

How can i move a article to article for creation if it has been declined once and i need the reviewers to review it once more?? The page i am asking about is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/INTEGRATION(festival). I have added the inline citations they asked for. So if u can review it, pleas review it and move it to article space. Thanks Integrationrocks (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have submitted the draft for you; you can do so yourself by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. However, the sources are rather insufficient. I believe out of the first six only one so much as mentioned the article's subject. Furthermore, there's no need to cite multiple copies of the same article - one will suffice, and the others don't count as independent anyway. One reference is a blog, which is not considered reliable. I don't think many (if any) write about the festival in appreciable detail. For example, which source is supposed to confirm the "introduction" section's very first sentence? I didn't find confirmation for that in any of the sources. The "events" section doesn't cite any sources at all. I don't think that's enough coverage to establish Integration's notability, and even if it were the unsourced parts of the draft would have to be removed. Huon (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Architecturemps

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Architecturemps

I am confused about images. I have uploaded a number to the gallery but during the edits I don't know how to access the image already uploaded. I cannot find the gallery. Also, two images have been deleted by th editor. One of these is my own photograph, the other is on an open-access source and in addition, I also have copyright permission from the creator. I have tried uploading both these images using a number of the upload criteria but am I just getting more confused. Can you please advise particularly regarding the copyright issue as in this case it should not be a problem. Many thanks.John'Jack'Welsh (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the images currently in the articles; there was a duplicate "File:" and a line break that might also have been problematic. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "gallery"; there is a "File:" namespace that holds all images uploaded to Wikipedia, such as File:ArchitectureMPS Image-type.jpg, File:Interior Photograph of Gallery, Margate, UK.jpg and File:Turner Contemporary Gallery photograph by Manuel Shvartzberg.jpg. It's not quite easy to find a given image in that namespace, but if you uploaded them yourself, it's easiest to check your contributions (that's how I found those images).

I believe up to now the only deleted images were ones of which other identical copies still exist - File:AMPS logo. Designed by AMPS 2012.jpg, for example, probably was a duplicate of the logo.

File:Turner Contemporary Gallery photograph by Manuel Shvartzberg.jpg is tagged for copyright problems because it's not enough to say that evidence of permission will be provided on request - such information must be provided immediately when the photo is uploaded. Since that image is apparently a duplicate of File:Interior Photograph of Gallery, Margate, UK.jpg, its deletion wouldn't be a great loss anyway (and when people realize it's a duplicate, one of the images will probably be deleted as such).

The licensing information on File:Interior Photograph of Gallery, Margate, UK.jpg is a little dubious, too - it says that the image is in the public domain and that it was released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 License - I'm no lawyer, but I doubt both can be correct at the same time. Apparently not all content on the journal's website is in the public domain; its submission page states: "Copyright of images is the responsibility of individual authors and you will be asked to sign a copyright declaration. Copyright of the article remains with the author." There's no indication that content is released for re-use under any license. Thus the photo is still copyrighted by the author (or by someone else whose permission the author had), and it may or may not have been released under a free license - I can't tell.

For the procedure on requesting copyright permission, see WP:Requesting copyright permission; for an example declaration of consent, see WP:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. You have apparently released all of your own images under a free license and noted that on the relevant file page; I don't think any of those are threatened by deletion.

However, the draft's main problem is not with the images but with the references. The journal apparently is brand-new and has been released only this year. Yet the article's sources are all older, with the newest three dating from 2011. I doubt any of those sources have much to say about a journal that wasn't even published when they were written. In particular, I doubt the journal is notable (yet). It might be best to wait until the journal itself (and not just the topics it publishes on) has been subject to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Huon (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

October 29

volvo car corporation

How the big data strategy gives volvo car corporation competitive advantage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.149.235 (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deena Mehta

I created an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deena Mehta few days back which was reviewed on 26th October. The submission of article has been declined stating the comment by the reviewer "The achievements should be countered with criticism, or substantiated with additional reliable sources. Go Phightins! 20:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)"

Can you explain me detail what need to be done from my end to make this article more effective.

I have tried putting in all the media & reliable references and written the article with a bias view itself. Awaiting your response

Marketing ACM (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Marketing_ACM

Well, Mehta has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources; she's clearly notable. But much of the article's content is currently not supported by those sources: For example, the "education" and "personal life" sections don't cite any sources, and none of the draft's current sources mentions Mehta's education at Sydenham College. The source for her "Special Contribution to Indian Capital Market" award is the organization bestowing the award, a primary source. An independent source would be much better. And the Economic Times article doesn't say that she has been elected president of the BSE, but that she was about to be elected. A source confirming that she did indeed win that election would be nice. On the other hand the Sunday Times of India article gives some details on Mehta's early career that the draft currently doesn't use. Huon (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ghanaian UK Based Achievement Awards

I am a member o the GUBA team and am writing on behalf of the organisation, what can i do to make this wiki article go live?

First of all you might want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; it may be better not to write on behalf of the organization at all (after all we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to provide free advertising).

The draft's main problem is its lack of reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. We require significant coverage in such sources both to establish the topic's notability and to allow our readers to verify the draft's content. Most of the draft's current sources are the organization's own web pages, with some self-published sources such as someone's personal website and LinkedIn thrown in. And the sources other than GUBA itself don't even mention it and thus could not be used to verify anything about GUBA even if they were reliable.

Furthermore, the draft's tone is unduly laudatory. Take the very first line: GUBA "is a prestigious, annual awards ceremony" - who called it prestigious? Claims such as that would definitely need a reliable source that's independent of GUBA.

The "judges" sections, on the other hand, tell us very little about GUBA. The judges may or may not be individually notable; their biographies should not dominate the GUBA article. They also read like puffery: "Her songs are effortless, elegant and timeless in a way that is rare in this era of music and her honeyed voice is frequently compared to the likes of Sade, Phyllis Hyman and Norah Jones" - really? Says who? We actually have an article on Rhian Benson; a simple link thereto would be much more appropriate than this paean of praise. Huon (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Association of Christian Librarians

Question regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Association of Christian Librarians

What's the deal with my article being declined? I submitted it for the first time this morning and got a message instantly that it had been declined due to insufficient notability 45 days ago by a wikipedia reviewer (which couldn't possibly be true given that I'd never posted it before and there was absolutely no time between its submission and rejection). The organization certainly meets your notability criteria--there are plenty of journal articles on the organization, not to mention it has had a master's thesis written about it--but much of the information relevant to the short article I'm submitting is most current from the organization's own website (headquarters, current membership, etc.). I cite the master's thesis and another journal article for much of the information, and the ACL website for the most current information. Was it rejected by an automated system? Do I need to change the citation formatting somehow?

I just went back to the talk page and discovered that someone had written an article under the same title 45 days ago that was rejected (from what I could tell) based on a lack of sources cited). I believe my sources establish the organization's notability (or at least I could provide further evidence of it if that was required), but my article is not being reviewed because of the previous submission. How might I have my submission reviewed?

Skaihoi (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)skaihoi

Hello Shaikhoi! Since Wikipedia keeps records of all versions ever submitted, this one was easy to track down. Please refer to the history of the draft page (link). It shows that one RoryPatt started that draft on 7 September, it was declined on 14 Sept, and on 29 October you came to that draft and pasted in your own material along with it, and it was declined again today. The reason for the "45 days go" bit is that you piggybacked onto an already existing draft rather than starting your own. That's not necessarily forbidden, but you didn't give any explanation in the WP:Edit summary for what you meant to do, so the intent was unclear.

In any case, the version you're working (on a page which now holds too unrelated versions) is better-formatted, but all but one of your references are from ACL itself. While it's okay to briefly cite the subject's own webpage for basic non-controversial details like founding date, headquarters location, etc., overall we require WP:Independent sources. That is, objective sources with no ties to the subject, like the Library Journal publication you cite once. Looking at GoogleBooks, it appears there a number of books which give some details and examination of ACL, so I'd definitely try footnoting some facts to those sources (you can use http://reftag.appspot.com to auto-create Wikipedia footnotes). Hope this helps explain! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have re-submitted the draft for you; you can do so yourself by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. The decline message also contained a relevant note: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here."

Besides looking for additional sources I'd suggest looking through the old draft in order to merge everything that's salvageable (and that can be sourced to reliable secondary sources) into the new draft and to remove everything else. If the draft is accepted, that will have to happen anyway. For now I've just left a message so the next reviewer won't be confused by the new draft, but combining them into one would remove all ambiguity. I haven't looked at the old draft in detail and cannot tell whether there is anything worth salvage - maybe it's best to just remove the old draft outright. The old decline message should remain as a historical record until the draft is accepted, though. Huon (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Colours (musical group)

I just got this message on a page I am trying to create, but I don't know what to do, or how to do it. This is my first attempt at making a page so the terminology is somewhat confusing.

This sandbox is in the Wikipedia namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. I don't know how to remove the User Sandbox template, or even what it is. Also, I don't know if I move the page into my userspace, it won't be considered as a real Wiki article.

Can you help please? brosed brosed (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You originally created the draft as a sub-page of your user page, a so-called "sandbox". It was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Colours (musical group), the preferred location for drafts that are about to be submitted, but MatthewVanitas, the user who performed the move, apparently forgot to remove the message that said the page was (or used to be) a sandbox. It was created by the "{{user sandbox}}" code at the very top of the draft. I removed that message.

I noticed another problem with your draft. I don't think the sources are sufficient to establish the band's notability. For that purpose we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. But your sources are either blogs, which are not considered reliable because they are not subject to editorial oversight (and the information seems to be either from a band member's brother-in-law or from a CD booklet and thus is not independent either), or track listings and credits from websites such as AllMusic - that's not considered significant enough. Are there independent reviews of the band and its work? Has it received newspaper coverage? That would be much better. For example, the claims about the record label's lack of experience, the poor marketing, or the lesser appeal of the second album would all need a reliable source to back them up - but right now none of the sources other than the blogs writes as much as a single sentence of text on the band. Huon (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jesus Ojeda Y Sus Parientes

Jesus Ojeda sings cool songs and he is so famous and he was three mens thats uses only on intresis each one. gutar ....[[]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.100.93.70 (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That should be added to the draft, and it should be backed up by reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles or independent reviews. Right now there's so little context that I cannot even tell whether Jesus Ojeda is one person or a trio. Huon (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proism

Hello, I have worked for over a year now on the creation of my religion. I have a small group of followers in my communtity and would like to achieve more. I have contacted national news sites to no avail. I have tried to get my religion on wikipedia before but i have no sources. Is there any way you could put it up to get the world out? Just trying to make a difference in the world. Thanks, Noah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanzan15 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Without reliable sources that are independent of the subject we cannot have an article. Furthermore, you seem to have a connflict of interest: Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tool for evangelism. Huon (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

October 30

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rajpal Abeynayake

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rajpal Abeynayake Hi what do i need to change to get this article to conform to your requirements, I can get the subject of this article who is the editor of the largest and oldest English language newspaper to get his bio confirmed if you wish. Also i have two references here that confirm most of the data i have in the article. The newspaper itself published a short bio today. http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/10/30/news13.asp Singhayotha Singhayotha (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

To establish Abeynayake's notability we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as the article in The Nation. His own employer is not an independent source, and I doubt the Galle Literary Festival website is subject to editorial oversight - it's probably not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. So only one of the sources satisfies our requirements, but we usually interpret "significant covereage" to mean "more than one good source" - the more the better. Confirmation by Abeynayake would obviously not be independent and therefore wouldn't help. Huon (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Abeynayake's own newspaper is not an ideal source, since as editor he presumably has great control of the content, but it could be useful for citing non-controversial information like date/place of birth, schools attended, etc. In terms of WP:Independent sources analysing his significance, I checked out GoogleBooks, and there are 49 hits for his name, at least some of which from very credible works on Sri Lankan history and literature. I would suggest perusing those and seeing what footnotable facts can be included; not also you can turn gBooks URLs into Wikipedia-format footnotes automatically using http://reftag.appspot.com . You may also find more gBooks hits using search terms like "Abeynaya Sri Lanka" to widen your search. Also see if you can find any articles covering him in other papers (in any language), ideally with a link if they're available online. Hope this helps, and as you can imagine your article will be far more useful to readers once the sources are clearly indicated so readers know where they can verify this information, as well as learn more. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DeeVS

Article draft

Dee VS Dee in 2012. Dee in 2012. Background information Birth name Derrick Kofi Abaitey Also known as DeeVS, Dee Versatile, Hook Master Born Accra, Greater Accra, Ghana Origin London, UK Genres Afro Beat, R&B, dance-pop Years active 2011-present Labels Hit Time Records RudeBoi Music Website htrecords.co.uk/dee-vs/ Derrick Abaitey, better known by his stage name DeeVS, is a multi talented Afrobeat and Hiplife Artist and the founder of Vibe Squad. He is signed to HT Records UK music label and RudeBoi Music. Dee released his version of Sauce Kid's Carolina track called Adonko and is set to released his debut single SHINE 15th November 2012 Discography Singles "SHINE" - 15 November 2012 "Lose Control" - 15 December 2012 Music career Dee got recognised from his time with Vibe Squad after releasing their smash hit Wadi Mi Sika, which got everyone dancing azonto in the clubs . Dee is currently working on an EP which is set to release in 2013. It promises to be full of energy and positive messages for young people. You can always expect nothing but future proof and quality music from Dee. Performances and Appearances • Post Club, Birmingham - 7th July 2012. • D'Banj Live, HMV Apollo, 27th August 2012 . • Ghana Independence day, Indigo 02 - March 2011. • Afrobeats Sundays - December 2011. • Ghana Party in the park, August 2009. References External links Official website Derrick Abaitey on [[HT Records]

Dabaitey (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a copy of your draft. It's awaiting review. What do you need help with?

At a glance I doubt DeeVS is notable (yet). The Guardian, the BBC and GhanaWeb don't mention DeeVS at all, and the other sources look like blogs. He hasn't released any albums yet, so I don't see which of the criteria of WP:MUSIC he's supposed to satisfy. Furthermore, claims such as "multi talented" or "smash hit" would have to be backed up by reliable sources; it's much better to present hard facts than such vague opinions.

If you are Derrick Abaitey, as your username suggests, you may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Huon (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

My first article

Question: question

I have submitted an article in AfC. Initially it was rejected due to lack of independent references. Now I have added some more references. Is that sufficient. Here is the link of the article submitted for AfC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mysore_Cements_Limited

Thanks, --Chansa Harsha (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There are enough reliable independent sources to clearly establish Mysore Cement's notability, but much of the draft's content is still based on primary sources such as Mysore's own website or their directors' report. Primary sources must be used with care, and only for uncontroversial statements; content should be based on coverage in secondary sources. Unless better sources can be found, I expect we'll have to remove or significantly shorten the sections that currently don't cite any secondary sources. The "internal issues and conflicts" section struck me as particularly inappropriate. Huon (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fintage House

How long does it take for an article to be reviewed when a blacklog elimination drive is on please? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fintage House

Rosievero (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There's still a backlog of several hundred articles; currently the oldest unreviewed drafts are from October 22. So it may take about a week until yours is reviewed. I just had a short look; I didn't see any major problems, but the prose is a little awkward. It seems more a list of bullet points than running text. Huon (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/S-FRAME Software

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/S-FRAME Software I believe I have uploaded this article only once and that it is an informative, fair article on an important topic. Please can you advise me on what steps I would need to take to get my article published. Any help would be greatly appreciated. THANK YOU 14:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.Tagge (talk • contribs)

Actually you did edit the other draft as well; compare its revision history. The two drafts seem pretty much identical to me, so it shouldn't matter which one gets submitted for review. However, I don't think the drafts in their current form are ready for publication. The sources are rather dubious and often don't support the statements they're cited for. For example, the source for the claim that "S-FRAME is a suite of Finite Element Analysis and Computer Aided Engineering software packages that work to create Building Information Modelling for engineers" is a table which only says that S-FRAME's capabilities are "structural analysis". That does't sound sufficient to me. In fact, very few of the sources cover S-FRAME in appreciable detail, probably not even enough to establish the company's notability. The best of the bunch is probably the Canadian consulting engineer article, and we don't really make use of what it has to say about S-FRAME or its predecessor SOFTEK. Huon (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

what inspired Antoni gaudi's designs for building

What inspired Gntoni gaudi's designs for buildings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.110.80 (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital

Hello,

I'm having a tough time sourcing my article. Do press releases not count as a source? Also, if a claim is made (and backed up by a primary source like their website), should I even bother citing it?

Thanks

Jammer19 (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Press releases are cosidered primary sources because they're written by one of the participants in the events they describe. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable secondary sources, such as newspaper articles. Primary sources may be used for uncontroversial details (such as a company's founding date, for example), but they must be used with care lest we assign them undue weight. More relevantly, they don't suffice to establish a subject's notability (that requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) and thus cannot show that we should have an article on the topic in the first place. So it's certainly better to cite a primary source than no source at all, but a secondary source is much better still. Huon (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please help me edit my submission as it keeps being declined

Hello there,

I would very much appreciate some help as I keep trying to add valid impartial sources to my article on the Curzon Memories App but even when I try and update it, it keeps being declined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Curzon_Memories_App

I updated it quite substantially a few weeks ago and noone has reviewed it.

How do I get someone to have another look and if possible can you see any particular issues that could be amended to allow publication??

Any help or advice you can give would be much appreciated.

Many thanks,

Charlotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croftscv (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you may want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest; it may be a good idea not to write the article about the app you developed yourself. I have submitted the draft for another review; you can do so yourself by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. But I believe the sources are still highly problematic. There are many primary sources such as your own paper, your research centre biography, or the cinema's website. Other sources, such as blogs or press releases, are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. I haven't checked every single source, and some may indeed be reliable and independent of the subject (the Wired article seems the best of the bunch), but Wikipedia content should be based on such sources, and this draft currently clearly isn't. So it will probably have to be shortened significantly when the dubious sources are removed or de-emphasized. Huon (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

October 31

formatting request

Hello. I would like some help with formatting the new entries and rewrites of my entry. Huon and other editors have kindly helped me to this point. However, I can't figure out how to properly cite my new references. I had originally submitted an entry with 53 references. Huon added formatting which unfortunately I'm not familiar with. I've tried to figure it out, with no success. Could you kindly fix the formatting for me? Please note that I have not yet updated the long reference list at the bottom. Thanks Rollingwagon (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've formatted the references and replied at lenght at your talk page. Huon (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter Prior (Gulumba)

This badly needs to be re-evaluated. There is not a single article written by the Author about the Author cited. This man is the first Australian Aboriginal to shoot a white Australian (notably one of such high status as a Superintendent) and be treated equally by the Courts. There are several Court Cases cited, as well as at least one PhD Thesis. This is not minor history, nor is it under attributed or unreferenced. I am happy to add in more detail, but this man deserves to be as well known within Australia as Mabo.Aaron1975 (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the source that the reviewer meant is this: Prior, P, 1982 'Early History of Palm Island' in Aboriginal & Islander Catholic Council: Let's Rewrite Our History (9th Annual Conference, Brisbane, 4-7 January, 1982), p.40. At a glance that does look like a source written by Prior himself although he died a few years earlier. I'm pretty sure the 1930 'Statement to Inquest into the Death of Robert Curry' is by Prior himself (who by the way is called Pryor by most of the contemporary sources), and that statement's author is also given as "Prior, P". You should probably give the full first names to avoid such confusion. Anyway, Prior's statement and the court documents (which don't mention this Prior at all) are considered primary sources; Wikipedia content should not be based on such sources. Quite a few of the other sources don't mention Prior either. And Wikipedia requires published sources, making the heavily-used unpublished BA thesis unsuitable. And quite a few claims in the draft aren't supported by sources at all; "hero" is an opinion Wikipedia shouldn't endorse; there's no indication in either the draft or its sources (as far as I've read them) of Prior's pursuit of native title, and the source for his descendants doesn't say they're his descendants.

In summary, Prior seems notable, but I'd suggest getting rid of most of the problematic sources - the contemporary newspapers that do mention Prior and Watson's thesis seem the best we have. Prior's statement for the police currently only serves as source for a quote from that statement; that's an appropriate use of a primary source. But what cannot be confirmed by the sources should be removed. Huon (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giorgio Madia

I reworked the references by using the template tool, added some more reliable sources like they have been suggested, found some more and similar references, and removed those, containing "only" production details. I hope it's better now! And I'm sorry in case I put this request and comment twice now. I was just not sure about the right "channel" to put the reworked article ... ;) Thank you for your support!Staatsballett Berlin (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I've had a look at the article. The new references are a great improvement. They establish notability and are to reliable independent sources. I'm going to move the article onto the encyclopedia shortly. It will take a few minutes. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

about new articles

I have some poems composed be myself. These have not been yet published in any source. So if I write them here, is there any probability to be used them by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev Kumar Tiwari (talk • contribs) 14:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of poetry, and an encyclopedia article on a poem that has not been published elsewhere would be considered original research and unsuitable for Wikipedia. The Poetry Wiki may be a better venue. Huon (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

North Woods Law (TV series)

Hi, I just created a Wiki article for a tv show called North Woods Law and it didn't pass the review because copyright infringement, but I work for the the show and my boss the (show runner) asked me to make it. How can I resubmit the page without it being seen as copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnCoffee64 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all you may want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. It may be better to wait until someone not involved with the show writes an article.

Regarding the copyright issue: Wikipedia publishes free content that's available under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. The copyright holder may release the text under that license (see WP:Requesting copyright permission for details; an example release form is given at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries), but usually it's easier to just rewrite the text in your own words than to bother with the copyrighted text.

Wikipedia content must be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as reviews published in newspapers or TV magazines. That disqualifies Animal Planet's website anyway. We require significant coverage in such sources, both to establish the show's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. The draft's only independent source was a very short blurb from TV Guide; that's probably the kind of routine coverage every TV program receives and not significant enough (and "significant coverage" usually means "more than just a single source" anyway).

Furthermore, the draft's tone was more reminiscent of an advertisement than an encyclopedia article: "Each punch of the time clock is a ticket to extreme danger and drama"? Says who? That would either need a source backing it up (and preferably a source relating that statement to the TV show) or it would have to be rewritten or removed.

In summary, my suggestion is that if you intend to write that article yourself you should make doubly sure that your draft is based on independent reliable sources and that it is written from a neutral point of view - I'd abandon the current version outright and start over from scratch. Huon (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Red Velvet Boys

Article draft

Greg Longstaff:Greg Longstaff was originally from the small town of Beech Creek, Pennsylvania. Greg Longstaff went to the Central High school where he was voted prom king in 1971. Greg Longstaff was a notorious "Player" in high school and was rumored to have dated every attractive woman in his graduating class. Longstaff went on to attend the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were he met Vente Johnson and Mark Flattery, who would go on to become the other members of The Red Velvet Boys. Vente Johnson: Vente Johnson was a shy child from Bowlegs, Oklahoma. Johnson attended Bowlegs High School, where he began to break out of his shell by dating the Senior Prom Queen his freshman year. Johnson would go on to date over 65 women in his four year tenure at Bowlegs High School. Vente Johnson suave, laid back personality made him the first unanimous pick for prom king in Bowleg's High School history. Vente Johnson received a full scholarship to Harvard University but instead chose to attend the University of North Carolina in 1972. Mark Flattery: Mark Flattery was widely known as the most reserved of The Red Velvet Boys. Flattery came from a city near Cleveland, Ohio called Chagrin Falls. There he attended Kenston High School and found time to be the captain of the basketball team, salutatorian, and prom king in 1971. Despite receiving a basketball scholarship from Dartmouth University, Mark Flattery attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. History: Although the true beginning of The Red Velvet Boys is unknown, it is known that the three men became acquainted with each other on October 11th, 1972 at fraternity party in Chapel Hill. The three men lived in southern campus of Chapel Hill and quickly became good friends. Campus life for The Red Velvet Boys was very entertaining. Their extraverted personalities quickly gained them great popularity and notoriety on campus. Needless to say all three of The Red Velvet Boys were notorious for the attractive women they dated. In an interview with Vente Johnson, an NBC reported asked Johnson why he chose Chapel Hill over Harvard University in which he replied, " Have you seen the women at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill?" The group gained notice at a greater level when Greg Longstaff began dating the 1973 Miss Universe Margarita Moran and Mark Flattery began to date Rina Messinger. The group quickly became popular socialites and were regularly asked to attend parties and events all along the East and West coast. Greg Longstaff cemented the Red Velvet Boy name when he was voted the sexiest man alive in 1975. Vente Johnson and Mark Flattery both earned this award following Longstaff in 1976 and 1977. In 1976 when Vente Johnson revealed his relationship with Patsy Wood, Miss North Carolina 1971, and Peter Longstaff( Greg Longstaff's brother) announced his four week relationship with Susie Proffitt, The Red Velvet Boys became household names as the first true playboy socialites. HTTP://WWW.KCSD.K12.PA.US/KCSD/SITE/DEFAULT.ASP HTTP://WWW.KENSTON.K12.OH.US/KHS/ATHLETICS/ATHLETICS.PHP HTTP://WWW.KENSTON.K12.OH.US/KHS/ACADEMICS/ACADEMICS.PHP HTTP://WWW.BOWLEGS.K12.OK.US

152.23.250.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a copy of your draft. What exactly do you need help with?

I had a look at the draft and noticed that none of its three sources (the fourth link apparently is broken) mention the Red Velvet Boys at all. To be considered notable a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. I failed to find sources on my own. Without such coverage we cannot accept the submission. Huon (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to upload a picture

Please see Wikipedia talk:Files for upload#Wikipedia:Files for_upload.2FWizard.2FLicense-Copyrighted. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you need help with? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation would be the best place to inform members of this WikiProject of the discussion, but I don't quite see the relevance. Huon (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

November 1

What does each knob mean on a digital voltage meter

Beginer, looking for very basic information on how to read and understand what each turn on volt meter means, plus what it stands emblem means.

any help will be help ful in laymen's term PLEASE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.108.50 (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Huon (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with re-submitting an article

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have submitted an article for Wikipedia and incorporated the suggestions of the reviewers, and am now ready to re-submit.

Unfortunately, when I press SAVE - nothing seems to happen.

Could you please advise me if I am doing something wrong.

Thanks in advance,

Atlas255 (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have submitted the draft for you, but unfortunately I cannot tell what exactly went wrong. You apparently could save the additional references, so it's not a general problem. You can submit a draft manually by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. Huon (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

prakasam

who is the father of indian politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.153.214 (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Depending on what you consider "Indian politics", I'd say Nehru or maybe Gandhi. If you take a wider view, you could go with Chandragupta Maurya, among the first to establish some kind of rule over almost all of India. I don't think Tanguturi Prakasam is significant enough for the title. Huon (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Rolfe

I have submitted an article (Richard Rolfe) recently and had the submission declined on two main points: the subject is not sufficiently notable and the citations are weak. Before making the submission I reviewed like articles and pages in order to assess the worth of this subject.

Given the work for which Richard Rolfe has received a variety of accolades and the extensive national coverage he obtained for this work the subject appeared highly notable. In particualr when compared to some pages already within the Wikipedia pages. Although Jersey is a small country the citations I included all came from national media including the BBC and a region of ITV for example. Mr Rolfe continues to be interviewed extensively by the media and so the article I submitted seemed highly pertinent.

I would be grateful for advice as to how I might further meet the requirements for submission. Having reviewed again the extensive guides on submission I am at a loss to take this further, (although thoroughly enjoying the process of interacting with Wikipedia)Journeaux (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Rolfe

At a glance Rolfe does appear to meet our notability standards. However, multiple sources cited to credit Rolfe with certain accomplishments in fact don't mention him at all. This includes the sources no. 2, 3 and 4, which combined are supposed to confirm much of the actual work Rolfe did at Le Rocquier. And the one source that mentions Rolfe's bout with cancer provides less detail than our article - where did the additional information come from?

I believe some of the information currently not supported by the cited sources could be salvaged by using others of the article's sources instead, but what cannot be sourced should be removed. Furthermore, the sources hosted at gov.je sites should probably be considered primary sources - in effect that's Rolfe's employer writing about Rolfe. They may be helpful, but we should treat them with greater care than true news sources. Huon (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Help removing submission

Hi, I submitted an article draft at AfC but in the meantime a couple of editors reviewed the draft in my userspace and helped to take it live. I'm not sure how to remove the submission now - can someone here help me to delete it? The submission is here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Apartment_Therapy

If this isn't the right place to ask, please let me know if there's a more appropriate venue. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the draft for speedy deletion as a page whose only significant author requested its deletion. I also declined the submission so no one else will bother to review it.

You could have nominated the draft for deletion yourself by adding {{db-author}} to the very top, but other than that, this help desk is indeed the right venue for all questions related to the Articles for creation process. For questions on Wikipedia in general you may find the main help desk a better place. Huon (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, really appreciate your help. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oliver McGee

Hi - I have added new references - not sure if I submitted my article for review again properly. Can you help? thanks!

Kathryn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmitch419 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You did submit the article properly; as long as there's a "review waiting" message and the page is categorized among the pending AfC submissions (the very last line), everything is ok.

However, I don't think the references are sufficient. Most of them seem to be primary sources such as McGee's own website or those of organizations he's associated with. Press releases are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, and the ACE doesn't even write a single sentence about McGee. That's not quite the significant coverage in reliable sources we need. Conversely, most of the article (including all awards but one) doesn't cite any secondary sources at all. Maybe McGee has been the subject of newspaper coverage?

As an aside, you had pasted multiple copies of the draft on the page. I removed all but one of them. Please try to avoid having more than one copy; it's usually rather difficult for reviewers to check which of the copies is supposed to be reviewed. Huon (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SwiftKey

My submission for SwiftKey was recently declined twice for reading like an advertisement. I used the Swype page as a guide for how to create the SwiftKey page (as both are competing third party keyboards for Android it seemed reasonable). I do not see how my submission is so different compared to the Swype page with regard to content. I kept all of the information factual. I started from SwiftKey’s beginning and explained it’s evolution. There are only two major differences that I notice between the SwiftKey page and the Swype page. The first is listing the awards SwiftKey has won. I can see how this may be interpreted as advertising, so I will remove it if I must. The other major difference from the Swype page is the description of the evolution of the 3 versions of SwiftKey. I feel like this is no different than describing the updates to the Android operating system such as describing ICS or Jelly Bean in the Android version history. I'm just trying to explain my thought process because I really don't understand why the SwiftKey article was declined. Will someone please explain what it is that needs adjustment (or removal, if necessary) in order to have the page published? Thanks in advance for any response.G what (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's more an issue of tone. Your draft addresses the reader - an encyclopedia article never should do so. Or take this statement: "The Fluency Prediction Engine is the most notable feature in SwiftKey." Firstly, we should not be using boldface, with very few exceptions such as the first occurrence of the article title; see MOS:BOLD. Secondly, that statement is not supported by sources, and thirdly, it provides no relevant information anyway. The sentence immediately afterward explains what the Engine actually does; that's much more helpful. (There's a second virtually identical statement about the Fluency Prediction Engine a little further down, including yet another use of boldface - was that deliberate?) And maybe it's just me, but the word "solution" seems to be heavily overused. What's the difference between an "on-screen keyboard solution" and an "on-screen keyboard"? I'm not sure what the section on the "VIP beta testing" is supposed to tell me about SwiftKey except that the company likes to flatter its volunteer testers. It's unsourced, too. On that note: Phrases such as "significant improvement" practically scream for a source. If they cannot be attributed to a source, we can remove them outright and won't lose anything of value.

And while that's not an issue of advertising, the "more information" section looks like an afterthought and should probably be merged with the rest of the text.

Another side note: References shouldn't be added to section headings but to text. In those cases I'd probably put the source after "The followinng new features were included". Huon (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a news article

Hello good afternoon, I have a question because my Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/tropical depression 01W (2010) is not a news. It is an article that I write each day what is happening to the storm system. That is not a news. It is an article about the storm's lifeHurricane trackers (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I assume you refer to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/tropical depression 01W (2010). I doubt that tropical depression is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Has it been the subject of signifcant coverage in reliable sources? The references you cite look like routine NOAA coverage, which would probably not suffice to establish it's a notable storm system. Huon (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Frank Maguire (solicitor)

Thank you for creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Maguire (solicitor) article for me.

As per your comment I now modified the article to take out subjective words and added more reference to demonstrate objective view of Frank. Can you please let me know how can I make the comment that refers to subjective word usage disappear from the top of the article?

Thank you CCarolinehaney (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That comment is generated by the {{peacock}} template at the very top of the article. When you feel the issue has been resolved you can simply remove the template. However, I feel it's still appropriate because the article in parts still praises Maguire lavishly with either no source at all or only his own law firm as a source. Is "Master Yachtsman" even a title? Are his colleagues the best available source for the claim that he was "respected"? (As an aside, the source doesn't actually say so.) The bare facts, in this case the "Solicitor of the Year" award Maguire won, are much more telling than ultimately vague opinions such as that about "respect", especially if there are no independent sources for the latter.

As an aside, what is the "key cases" section supposed to be about? I would assume that it's about legal cases Maguire was involved in, but rather it seems to be a loose collection of times Maguire expressed an opinion on something, often backed up only by primary sources written by Maguire himself. For quite a few cases it's not even clear what the "case" was about: What should "Opposing View - Holyrood Magazine March 2010" tell me about Maguire?

Also, since the draft has been accepted and is now a live article, it's technically no longer within the scope of WikiProject Articles for creation and this help desk. The main help desk may be a better venue for future questions. Huon (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:Legmore/sandbox

Hi

I have submitted something on Wikipedia but I don't think I have completed it correctly. Is there any way I can withdraw it?

Lindsay Legmore (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• You need to remove the {{AfC submission}} template from the article. I've done this for you. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

what browser does you live chat work in? so far Chrome and Fire fox does not show a white box to type in.

Corey12 (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't use a browser at all but a chat client: mIRC. For Firefox you probably want a dedicated chat extension like ChatZilla. I don't know about Chrome and cannot give any advice on that. There also exist less comfortable "webchat" pages such as http://webchat.freenode.net/ - those should work from any modern browser. I just tested it, and in my Firefox the link I provided does work. If it doesn't with yours, that may be due to restrictive settings regarding JavaScript, but I don't guarantee for that. Huon (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want Wikipedia general help the channel name will be wikipedia-en-help. Enter any nick you would like to use. -- :- ) Don 22:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott Jay Kenyon

Thanks again to Huon for an excellent critique of the article I am writing, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott Jay Kenyon, and very clear pointers on how to proceed. I have tried to use this advice in the revision - I have added many secondary sources, eliminated some of the lists, and followed Huon's suggestion of a separate publication list. If Huon or someone else could take a look at the revision, I would appreciate it. I am hopeful it has what is needed but if it does not please let me know how to fix the parts that are not quite right. Thanks! Seriouscallersonly (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed, accepted, published. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast! And great news - thanks very much! Seriouscallersonly (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Westchester Bank

What is wrong with the way I am citing my sources? I've tried several times to contact the users who have reviewed my article but have not heard anything back. Is there a number I can call to speak with someone?

Thanks

Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wthogan (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's a phone helpline; since Wikipedia is basically a volunteer effort, that would probably be impractical. We have a live help chat, though.

The problem is not the way you cite the sources, but the fact that the draft's only source is the bank itself. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles. We require significant coverage in such sources, both to establish a topic's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content.

I just noticed there's a second draft with additional sources: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Westchester Bank. I haven't looked at the The Westchester County Business Journal since it's apparently not available online, but the Yahoo News pieces in fact aren't news reports but press releases originating with the bank. Those are not considered independent sources; by Wikipedia's standards they're probably not reliable either because they haven't been subject to editorial oversight. The County Business Journal may be a good source, but on its own it's not enough: "Significant coverage" usually means "more than one source with at least a paragraph each on the subject". Huon (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

November 3

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elizabeth Van Wie Davis

To whom it may concern: I am having trouble understanding what is meant by 'independent sources' regarding the article I am attempting to create: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elizabeth Van Wie Davis. Thank you so much for your help and time!

Very Respectfully, Je 1847 (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Je 1847

"Independent sources" are sources that are independent of the article's subject - in particular, sources not written by her or her close associates. This concerns the vast majority of the draft's sources. Disregarding Wikipedia links for a moment (Wikipedia doesn't consider itself a reliable source), we have eleven references to publications by Davis, three to documents and websited hosted by her employer the Colorado School of Mines (which are presumably influenced or written outright by Davis, and even if they weren't her employer would likely still be biased in her favor), and one to the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies which according to that document included Davis among its faculty at that time. That's fifteen out of sixteen. The last one, the China Review International review of her book, is truly independet, but it's not enough to base an article on. To be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, she must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent sources - definitely more than just one book review. Maybe she received some newspaper coverage, perhaps on the occasion of her awards? Huon (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Duke Forum For Law & Social Change

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Duke Forum for Law & Social Change

Hi,

I am not sure what third party sources I can provide for this article. It is one of the nine law journals at Duke Law School. All other journals have Wikipedia pages but this one currently does not. A list of all law journals at Duke, including the Duke Forum for Law and Social Change can be found here: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/journals/

All of my sources cited are on Duke Law School's webpage. This is a reliable third party source. Is there some other source that I can provide which might help this page get published? Thank you!

Sincerely, Shamoor Anis Shamoor (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Duke Law School is not a third-party source on its own journal. The other Duke law journal articles (or at least those I had a look at) are also in a sorry state, but while other insufficiently sourced articles exist, that's no reason to create more. For a well-sourced article on a law journal, have a look at the Harvard Law Review: Sources include the New York Times, the Boston Globe, CBS News, the Journal Citation Reports and two books published with reputable publishers. Those are third-party sources. Huon (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:JordanJAH/sandbox

Hello, I recently submitted an article for confirmation/release, however couldn't figure out how to change the title. Currently the article is sitting in my sandbox as "User:JordanAH/sandbox" but the actual article will be titled: Christopher J. Howell.

Not sure how this will affect the confirmation but wanted to make you aware.

Thank you, Jordan JordanJAH (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher J. Howell, the preferred location for drafts and the correct title. I've also left a message with a link to the new title at your sandbox; you can remove that message and re-use the sandbox whenever you want.

However, I noticed that your draft doesn't cite any sources. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, both to establish its notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content. Without such sources we cannot accept the submission. Maybe Howell has been the subject of newspaper coverage?

As an aside, I was rather surprised by the prominent mention of Howell's international travels. Is that really important enough to be mentioned in what the lead section?

There was also this statement: "With more than two decades of industry experience Howell brings to the table a wealth of proven tactics that help others reach their destiny." It sounds good, but what exactly is it supposed to tell the reader, beyond his 20+ years of experience? It would probably have to be reworded or removed lest the draft is considered to be unduly promoting its subject. Huon (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

November 4

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LA Progressive

I am writing to request some advice on getting an article created for a publication that I read regularly, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LA Progressive. My submission has been rejected twice for two different reasons.

The first rejection came on October 30, 2012 from Abdullah Alam. His reason was, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". I understood what he was asking, added the sources and resubmitted for consideration.

The second rejection came on Nov 1, 2012 from "Charmless Coin". This time, the rejection explanation did not mention a lack of sources but instead the problem was the tone. The reviewer stated,"This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article".

I am happy to make the changes but I'm concerned about submitting a third revision and getting yet another rejection with a different reason for it not making the grade.

I was hoping you could give it a look and tell me what I am doing wrong.

Thank you,

Mlw143 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Mlw143

The reviewers who look at the submissions usually use canned responses that address the most severe issue - it may happen that the draft has other issues that get resolved one after another. Since the reviewers are extremely busy (after massive efforts we still have a backlog of several hundred unreviewed submissions) they don't take the time to look thoroughly for additional problems once they have determined that the draft currently isn't ready for the article space. I'm sorry for the frustration, but the alternative would bury the reviewers under mountains of additional work.

For example, the current reviewer focused on the tone (and I'll say something about that, so please bear with me), but the sources are still problematic. Many of them are primary sources such as the LA Progressive itself. Others, such as blogs and opinion pieces, are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards because they lack editorial oversight. Yet others such as Snopes don't even mention the LA Progressive. And the link that's supposed to point to the Daily Kos is actually a duplicate of the Talking Points Memo link. But Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject - in fact, we require significant coverage in such sources to establish a topic's notability. I don't think the current sources suffice to meet that standard. Has the LA Progressive been the subject of coverage in mainstream newspapers? That would be helpful.

Regarding the tone, the draft does take a very positive view of the LA Progressive. For example, it notes the LA progressive upholds "the long held tradition of advocacy journalism" (twice). Firstly, such a claim should be backed up by a secondary source. Secondly, that statement is rather vague. Whose tradition is that? Since when was it held? Don't we just mean that the LA Progressive is an example of advocacy journalism? The "controversy" section is another egregious example: First the draft engages in a lengthy explanation of Sarah Palin's background that's rather irrelevant to the LA Progressive. Then it one-sidedly reports the LA Progressive's uncorroborated coverage as fact (Snopes, for example, doesn't just report that the story exists but that by its very nature it is unverifiable) and finally engages in some quote mining by implying that BaileyWo endorsed the LA Progressive's accuracy when in fact he refers to a 63-page PDF "Vetting" file compiled by the Democratic Party in Alaska. According to the Jefferson County Republicans, Daily Kos removed its post on the subject - if that's true, it would be rather strong evidence against the story's reliability. A somewhat less severe example of inappropriate tone is the mention of the "concentration of newspaper ownership in the hands of a few" - I doubt there's any reliable source connecting that to the LA Progressive, and without such a source it becomes original research, something Wikipedia should not engage in.

And while that wouldn't stop the draft from being accepted, it would profit from some copyediting. I fixed a couple of (surprisingly systematic) typos, but there may be more. Huon (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Huon -- you obviously spent a considerable amount of time on answering my question. I will work on it, using your suggestions and resubmit.

Mlw143 03:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)mlw143