Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PIAM Security (talk | contribs) at 18:36, 14 August 2012 (→Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Physical Identity and Access Management: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


August 8

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hans Nordin

I´m writing an article about Author, TV-host, Fishing Guide Hans Nordin with whom I made several documentaries during the years 1989-2001. Since then also others have made TV-shows and documentaries with him. There also are a lot of articles produced about, with and of him. But before 2000 there is not easy to get references. Especially when it comes to journals. To mention that there is a world wide spread interest in Hans Nordin is relevant since people from all over the world has come to Sweden just to meet and fish together with Hans. Therefore the introduction mention journals from countries not all with references. But there are references from books published in many of those countries. I like to know what your advice is regarding this. Kind regards Börje Peratt Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hans Nordin]] (Peratt) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peratt (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current references are a mixed bunch. Many look like reliable secondary sources to me: Articles about Nordin written by independent journalists. Others, however, are primary sources such as Nordin's own books or the TV series, or they don't mention Nordin at all, like that IMDb link to Börje Peratt's page. I couldn't identify some, like "NOANEAHbIM NOB" - is that title misspelt? My suggestion would be to get rid of most of the primary sources and to emphasize those that are truly independent - sources by others about Nordin. I'd also proof-read them for typos; for example, it's not "Wobbler -toppmodelle im eigenbaum", but "Wobbler: Topmodelle im Eigenbau" (that's another primary source anyway, but still).
To have the article state that there's a worldwide interest in Nordin would require a secondary source which makes exactly that claim - it's not enough to present sources from various countries about him and then synthesize them into that claim. For that particular "journals in X" line, I'd say it would be much more interesting to summarize what those journals had to say about Nordin than just to mention that they did cover him. Huon (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that "NOANEAHbIM NOB" is supposed to be Cyrillic (it may still be misspelt, though - there seems to be a lack of consonants). However, a secondary source stating that Nordin is an internationally published author would be much preferable to a bunch of references to the translations of his own books. Huon (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Valerie Miles

How long does it normally take for an article to be reviewed? Could anyone help me out with my article? Much appreciated.

If I wanted to register myself, what would I have to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encatedrales (talk • contribs) 08:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft wasn't submitted for review; I have done that for you. There is a massive backlog; it will probably take a few days or a week until it gets reviewed. However, there are a few issues. Firstly, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which reference supports which of the draft's statements. Biographies of living persons face very strict standards for inclusion, and inline citations are often considered necessary. Secondly, not all of the references you give are acceptable. YouTube and Vimeo videos are user-submitted content and usually not considered reliable; neither are blogs. Miles' introduction to Granta is a primary source. The El Pais article, while definitely a reliable secondary source, tells us virtually nothing about Miles. That leaves us with the CCCB profile, and I'm not sure that comes with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required to be considered reliable. Furthermore, the standard for notability is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and "significant coverage" is usually interpreted to mean "more than one source that provides non-trivial coverage". My suggestion would be to look for newspaper coverage that provides a little more detail on Miles than that El Pais piece.
I'm not sure what you mean by "registering", but since you have created an account, you're as registered as you can be. Some rights will be extended to you when your account is autoconfirmed, that is, when it's a few days old and has made more than ten edits, but other than that, this is it. Welcome to Wikipedia! Huon (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thahib

This was just a note that im sending referring to my draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thahib. I would like to know what are essential to be contained in an article (things i must have included for my article to be accepted). i have resubmitted it. (Thahib (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

  • I've had a look at your article and I can't pass it as the moment. The references are other Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia cannot be used to reference itself. I've added some suggestions for what references you could include on the review comments. Another thing to be aware of is that your username suggests you are attempting to write a Wikipedia article about yourself, which is generally considered a bad idea as it can lead to a conflict of interest amongst other things. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chandrika Balan

Dear Sir.Madam

I had previously submitted an article under name Chandrika Balan which was declined for more references. I have today edited and resubmitted it with Chandrika Balan alias Chanbdramati with all information you had requested.

Kindly let me know the status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panank (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has not been resubmitted for review; due to the massive backlog, that will take a few days, possibly more than a week.
To me the Hindu and yentha articles seem sufficient to establish her notability; however, you should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which part of the article is based on which reference. In fact, the article text and the references seem almost disjoint - for example, neither source mentions Canada, or the St. Berchman's Award, or the Playwright's Meet in Adelaide, . The article also needs some heavy copyediting; I've started on that and will continue later today. Huon (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leigh Bale

Good morning!

I submitted an article titled Leigh Bale. GregJackP denied the article stating that my sources were not "verifiable." I don't know what more to do here. I've looked at numerous other author Wikipedia pages and gave even more source references than many of them have. Leigh Bale is a nationally published author. I listed two of her publishers (every one knows who Harlequin is, right?) and also Amazon.com where her books can be purchased, her web site, Romance Writers of America's web site (which has a page in Wikipedia, too), and some other web sites for awards this author has won. What more can I do here? I'd sure appreciate the help. Thanks!Lynn Savatch (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lynn, I have looked at your references and found:
  1. Is a secondary source, they sell books.
  2. Is a primary source.
  3. Is a primary/secondary source.
  4. Does not check out.
  5. Is a good source.
  6. Is broken.
  7. Is primary source.
  8. Is primary source.

You have one good citation. Since this is a WP:BLP stricter standards apply. We need 2 or more reliable, independent sources to establish her notability and in-line citations for any information in the article that may be contentious. More helpful information can be found at WP:SOURCE. Thanks for your efforts so far. --  :- ) Don 16:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best and easiest way to prove notability is newspaper, magazine articles, reliable website which have book reviews. The New York Times would be 100% guaranteed way to prove notability. But, Grants Pass Daily Courier will also work. --  :- ) Don 21:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is written like an advertisement

I would like to have someone help me streamline the article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/VOS_Flips so it will be able to be accepted. I have tried to keep it as neutral as possible, but as I am a new editor perhaps my eagerness to write about this company may have been biased.

Note: I personally met the founder of this company at a meeting at the University of Texas at San Antonio when he gave a presentation about his company to the International Trade Committee. As a student of Latin background, I was very impressed about what his company is doing and wanted to share this information with the world via Wikipedia, similar to what other companies and organizations such as Green America and Toms Shoes have done.

Please let me know what mistakes were made and how I can correct them to align with Wikipedia's rules.

Thanks Shpena (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the article's references leave much to be desired. Many of them are primary sources such as the company's website ot those of the affiliated non-profit organizations. Others provide only trivial coverage - the UN Global Compact and Green America websites don't even mention VOS. Yet others, like YouTube videos, are not reliable. There are some truly independent reliable sources that have something to say about the company, such as the San Antonio Express-News article (of which two versions are provided as "different" references, one of them attributed to the Houston Chronicle), but they are few and far between. Conversely, most of the draft's sections, especially the text-heavy ones like the "Business operations", "Business model" and "Philantropy" sections, ar wholly or mostly unreferenced.
Secondly, the article cannot quite decide what it's supposed to be about. Is it about the brand, VOX Flips? About the company, Flores, LLC? (And is VOX Flips a brand, a company, or both?) That's rather unclear. In any case, I don't see how the founder's football games are relevant to either, and the coverage of the National Rubber Association of Guatemala also is rather irrelevant to either VOX or Flores.
Thirdly, the entire draft's tone is unduly laudatory and full of what I call marketingspeak. VOX designs "unique" cross-over and thong-style designs? Says who? They were "launched in the marketplace"? How about "sold"? Or take this gem: "Two Steps At A Time™ takes a left and a right step to create an integral solution for under-privileged communities." What does that even mean? Also, we don't use registered trademark symbols like ™ or ®.
On the other hand, hard facts are conspiciously absent. There are no revenue figures, no number of employees, no numbers of shoes and sums of money actually donated. Soles4Souls has given away about a million pairs of shoes over the last seven years - how many did VOX Flips contribute?
My suggestion would be to get rid of most or all of the primary sources and to rewrite the draft based on what the reliable secondary sources (the newspaper articles and the like) have to say, and on what's relevant to VOX. We should aim for a rather dry, neutral tone. Hard facts and numbers are worth more than lofty claims and good intentions (see also WP:MISSION). And those facts and claims should always come with a source to back them up.
And one less important suggestion: While the lead section is clearly based on that of Toms Shoes, that was not the best guide. The very first sentence should clearly state whether the subject is a company or a brand, and what they produce. For Toms Shoes that might be obvious, but "flips" could be anything. I'd expect something like this: "VOX Flips is a Guatemalan shoe manufacturer founded in 2008, specialising in eco-friendly sandals. VOX Flips is heavily involved in charity and donates one pair of shoes to charity for every pair it sells." That seems an adequate (though rather short) summary of the company, its business and its involvement with charity; the details can then be provided in the body of the article. Huon (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Sedagroup/Dean Stafrace

Please help

There are articles and website evidence on this person

How do I add them for verification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedagroup (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL explains how to link to websites. You should use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which reference supports which part of the article. There are also nifty citation templates like {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} which take a bunch of parameters such as the URL, the source's title, the author, the publisher and the date, and automatically produce a well-formatted reference. WP:Referencing for beginners may also be helpful, but let me provide an example you can copy and adapt:
Dean Strafrace is an Australian DJ known as Toyboy.[1]
Have a look at this section's code to see what I did here: The <ref></ref> tags produce the footnote, {{cite web}} produces the text in the footnote, and {{reflist}} displays the footnote in the references section.
As an aside, I wasn't overly impressed with the amount of articles I found; this one was the only one that turned up in a Google News search. It's not really about Stafrace, and on its own it's probably not enough to establish his notability. Huon (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Creative Child Care". The Sydney Morning Herald. October 5, 2006.

August 9

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Yankles

In the two years I've been active on wikipedia, I've created almost 40 articles -- and always moved them from draft stage to article stage when I thought they were read. I just created an article titled "The Yankles" but was automatically notified that it must be reviewed and approved. It is now at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Yankles. I'm wondering if this is a new policy for all new articles? Also, is there a way for an editor who has created multiple articles to reach a point where he or she is exempt from this review requirement? I apologize if these questions are inappropriate, but I'm still trying to learn the rules.... Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've accepted the submission and moved it into mainspace. If you used the Template:userspace draft and clicked on "Submit the page!" it submits it to AFC. If you don't want your draft articles to go here and can just move them instead on clicking "Submit the page!". Normally any article in mainspace is placed on a list and an editor patrols it in the new page patrol process. The autopatrolled user right marks them as patrolled (and is not related to AFC) and is only given out to people who have created a number (usually around 50) of acceptable articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Callanecc! Ah...now I understand what I did differently this time! Many thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shadow Education

Hi,

I need more info on the review of Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shadow Education. How are the sources provided not reliable? They are either published articles, online articles or from academic journals. There are a plethora of citations, from a variety of sources.

SCrowley123 (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. I declined this, and I think the reason was because a lot of the article relates to the first source, which I thought might have been a primary source, but on looking at it, it seems to be a valid news report, and there are several other sources cited. Also, the lead is a bit confusing, and should simply state something like "Shadow education is the private tuition of school age children who also receive state funded full time education" or something similar. The other concern I had is that article didn't have a gobal view on the subject, but that in itself is not specifically a reason to decline an article, and I would simply tag that as such. Also, in a news search for "Shadow Education" here I see articles from Reuters and BBC Archives, which sustain its notability. My apologies - please resumbit the article for review. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/EYC_Ltd

Hello

My name is Bianca Malisan, from EYC Ltd. Please could you remove the article for creation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/EYC_Ltd

The reason for this is that the information is untrue and the company, EYC Ltd. would like this page removed so that people cannot access it on the web.

Thank you Bianca Malisan Executive Assistant 0208 255 2205 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.231.50 (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a speedy deletion tag and courtesy blanked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrika Balan alias Chandramati

Sir, Madam,

Thank you for your prompt response.

However,it is not clear what you mean by foot note coding. Does it mean that more information should be given on each source?

http://www.berchmanskuwait.org/activities.htm This link shows her as the Best Teacher Award winner of 2002. For the Adelaide and Canada visits, unfortunately no web sources are available.

Kindly advise what to do.

Sincerely

NB: Kindly advise how can I send her photo?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panank (talk • contribs) 13:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding footnotes, please have a look at Help:Footnote. It means that each possibly contentious statement should be accompanied by a footnote that specifies the references that supports the statement. I have added this source and the references given in the article to the relevant statements as footnotes; you can have a look at the draft's code to see how I did that. However, much of the article's content remains unreferenced and will have to be either sourced or removed. Sources need not be available online (though that's easier for the readers, obviously); print editions of newspapers or books are also acceptable if you provide sufficient bibliographical details to identify the source.
As an aside, the Alumni Association's website is a primary source (the organization giving the award reporting about its own award); a secondary source would be much better. The reasoning here is that if no one else has bothered to take note of the award, it's probably not that important in the first place.
If the photo comes with a free license, in particular one compatible to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Once it's uploaded, the picture tutorial explains the wikicode for displaying it in the article. But a photo is much less important than the reference issues; those should be your primary concern. Huon (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JOSEPH EVE, Certified Public Accountants

I went through my references with a reviewer, which she found notable, and she tried to approve my stub article however she received a error which she wrote about in a comment in the article Comment: Tried to approve this stub and got an extension hook error, also got a title blacklist message when attempting to move. Not sure what's going on but at least it's in the propor talk space now.heather walls (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please fix issue and approve article as per reviewer's request.


Oniazuma (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article looks available to review. However, I'm reluctant to pass it as I've spotted an immediate issue with the references. The first one here is cited for "The firm is one of the leaders in Tribal Gaming accounting", an important notability claim for the article, but it returns a 404 "Not found" error. Based on that, it might be more appropriate if you checked all the references again and resubmitted the article for review. --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what that issue was, and if the title indeed is blacklisted, creating the article would probably require admin intervention. However, I agree with Ritchie333 that the references need work; I don't think they actually suffice to establish the accounting firm's notability. One, the Journal of Accountancy article, covers the firm in some detail. The others are almost all broken links, primary sources or trivial coverage; many do not even support the statement they are cited for. For example, the claim that the firm "has helped steer Indian Gaming regulation" is sourced to an Imperial Valley Press article which mentions Eve only as a source on the percentage of gaming revenues that is net income. No indication of Eve "steering regulation" is given in the source. In summary, almost all of the content is not based on reliable secondary sources. As an aside, there was no improvement to the references (except capitalization) since the article was declined for a lack of notability on July 27. Huon (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh crap ok you know what happened was when i was fixing capitalization and other errors i must have accidentally broken the links. As far as the references, perhaps i should have put the imperial valley article after the sentence, and perhaps I am looking at the article from the perspective of a CPA too much, but as far as notability, I think the fact that they quoted the firm for the revenues & NI figures is far more notable than all the other words in the article. This is because we are looking at a public accounting firm, and in the accounting industry figures are what the meat of the practice is about. And for them to quote the firm for the indian gaming figures, when they could have used figures from any other firm, including big 4 firms speaks multitudes when the topic is a public accounting firm. Public accounting firms must also stay independent of the client in many cases, so speculations about the industry etc is often avoided. I thought steering regulation would be ok wording because articles like this are what steer regulation, & the fact that figures provided by the firm were used means independent research led to the firm's figures. But yes, I think maybe the wording could be changed, so I will change it to something more concrete. Thank you for the suggestion. Also, there were many references added to the article since it first was declined - you don't see it this way because after the first decline by czarkoff the other ones were mistakes. I found this because I went to the help chat room, talked to a reviewer who overturned czarkoff, then he said czarkoff told him the subsequent denials were mistakes. Anyways, i'll get to work fixing the references. I just wanted to start a stub at first,then add more/better refs and info when I have more time etc, but I wanted to add that the indian gaming public accounting industry is a very niche industry which is still very much in its infancy in the scheme of things, and the Senate hearing where the firm was called was to testify probably was the most notable event in indian gaming accounting history as far as regulation etc goes. Also, there are few media outlets because accounting is not a very sought after topic for exciting news especially because tribal accounting is even smaller but among the largest is NIGA, which the firm is reported on plenty of times by. Just thought i'd add that in this particular industry, media outlets like NIGA & Casino Enterprise Magazine are like the CNN of mainstream news. Okay sorry for the rambling will fix the broken link issue as soon as i have time. Thanks for all your suggestions!Oniazuma (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I just had a look at the sources whose links were broken. The first is an interview, which is of dubious use because it's effectively Joseph Eve speaking about Joseph Eve - there's no indication of fact-checking by the interviewer, and the publication doesn't seem all that reliable to me. Another is a primary source, the NIGA report written by Joseph Eve themselves.
Secondly, the criterion for notability is "significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject". Being quoted for the industry's revenue figures is not significant coverage; it tells us nothing about Joseph Eve.
Thirdly, when the source quotes a company member on some industry figure, concluding that this quote somehow steers regulation is original research (which is forbidden on Wikipedia). If we want to claim that Joseph Eve steers or influences regulation, we need a secondary source which says so.
Fourthly, currently there are no secondary sources for the Senate hearing. If that's the most important event in the company's history, I'd expect some newspaper coverage.
Fifthly, I cannot tell what conversation you had on the help chat, but according to the draft's history, Czarkoff declined the article once, on July 27, and there were neither declines nor significant improvements to the article afterwards. There may have been some mistakes earlier, but not later (unless we consider heather walls' attempt to accept an article on an apparently non-notable company a mistake).
Finally, while you say that "figures are what the meat of the practice is about", the article is pretty much devoid of figures, such as revenue figures for Joseph Eve itself, or the number of employees, or just the founding date. Those would be important facts on any company. Huon (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Café Du Nord

Hello! I'm just trying to get an idea of long it might be before someone reviews my submission? Can I make it live in the mean time? Thank you! Lisavn (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is currently a backlog of articles waiting to be reviewed - previously it has taken a few days, but at the moment it may take a week. One issue I quickly noticed with the article is that some of the references seem to be blog sites, or don't really talk about the club in depth, which might indicate a problem with notability, particularly if the club has only achieved local, rather than regional or national news coverage. Based on that, I wouldn't recommend moving the article into the main namespace (which is what you probably mean by "making it live") as it would have a risk of appearing at Articles for Deletion at this point for the above reasons. Hope that helps. --Ritchie333 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a little on what Ritchie333 said: The only source which provides a little more coverage is the "Most Improved Rock Club 2004" article, and even that does not confirm everything it's cited for. Few of the others do. Two don't mention the Cafe at all. Only one source doing more than mentioning the name is probably not enough to satisfy the notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
To provide just two examples of the loose connection the draft has to its sources: All sources spell it "Cafe Du Nord" without the accent on the "e" (so does the Cafe's own sign), and according to the "most improved" source, it was sold in March 2003, not in 1993. Here the draft goes against the sources; most other content is simply unrelated to them and not verifiable. Huon (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bunce-Deddens algebra

Apparently submission was blank. As of right now, it's no longer blank...unless I am missing something. How does one resubmit? Mct mht (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for you. The submission is supposed to be on the talk page, don't worry about it. If the submission is accepted the reviewer will make sure it lands in the right place. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Danny De Lillo

I created a new article with sources I cited. Each of them appears to be reliable. I am interested in making contributions to Wikipedia and I'm writing as factually as possible.

Would you help me understand specifically which sources had issues so that I can better understand it.\

Borntodeal (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borntodeal,
We had a few technical issue with your submission, the computer gets really upset when you don't do thing the way it wants. We had a {{reflist}} in the middle of the article, which the computer HATES, and the infobox should always be the first thing. I fixed those up real quick.
The serious stuff is that all your references except the Sunday Mercury are not very reliable, it appears they are mostly blogs, which anyone can make. The "London Philosophy Club" is iffy, still sort of a blog, and it does not say very much at all about your subject. What really proves notability are references from companies that have big buildings, CEO's, and all that stuff. See if you can find some newspaper article, magazine article , TV or radio station website that mentions him. Those are the places that are considered reliable. If you want to be bored for an hour, have a look at WP:SOURCES. You've made a good start, we just need some reliable organizations to confirm your information.
Thanks for your work. --  :- ) Don 07:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Atlantic Economic Society article creation

Hello, I am wanting to create a new article on the International Atlantic Economic Society - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Atlantic Economic Society. I think this would be a good addition to Wikipedia since many of the past presidents have been Nobel laureates and they have published many notable works. I am having trouble, however with the sources. There aren't a lot of third party sources for articles published by the IAES. For example, if I say that Dr. X has been published by the IAES, is it enough to simply cite the article s/he published? Any help would be appreciated, thanks! Kcastellanos1 (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the situation is worse than that: There aren't a lot of third party sources for the IAES itself. The SJR discussing the journal is the best one we currently have, but it doesn't really say anything about the society. But we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish its notability.
Once notability has been established, citing the articles themselves for the fact that Dr. X has published in the IAES' journal might be acceptable, but if no third party source bothered to note it, it's probably not all that relevant to the IAES. Huon (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Basil Webb

This article was turned down on 3 Aug because of lack of references. This was rectified the next day but the article has not yet been approved nor have any further comments been received. Could this article please be submitted for review again.

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

Thank you

Ashkelon5059 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashkelon5059 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been resubmitted for review, but since there's a massive backlog, it will probably take a few more days until it gets reviewed again. However, I'm not sure the references are sufficient. Some of them don't even mention Webb; I doubt Zoominfo's reliability, and most of the others provide only trivial coverage. The reviewer may well decide that this still isn't the significant coverage in reliable sources necessary to establish Webb's notability. Huon (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Landt Trio

I have several different headings in my article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Landt Trio. All of them come up except the third one, "Later Years" or "Later Career" (I tried both hoping the problem might just have something to do with the number of characters, but of course, it didn't.) The heading text appears in neither the table of contents nor the body of the text. I have checked and double checked that each one has the right number of = before (each of my headings has 3 = before and 3 after the words.) I can't think what else to try. Please help or send me to the right forum for this kind of help. Many thanks.

Karlsdotter (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Kitsie Parkinson (Karlsdotter)[reply]

You made a minor syntax error formatting one of the named refs. I changed a <ref name="dunning /"> to <ref name="dunning" />. I also replaced the reference section with {{reflinks}} so the footnotes will be automatically generated. Kilopi (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Kilopi who doesn't seem to be able to receive direct communication (or as a newby, I haven't yet figured out how.) However, I am very grateful for your help.

Karlsdotter (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jetex Flight Support

Hello

I would like to know if my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jetex Flight Support has been submitted for review. It was created on August 11th

Thank you

Komal KomalQaiser (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been submitted; as long as there's a "Review waiting" message and it's categorized among the pending AfC submissions, it is awaiting review. However, there's a massive backlog of more than 700 drafts awaiting review, and it will take some time, probably about a week, until it's this one's turn.
I have tidied up the references and added the footnotes to the relevant parts of the article. However, four of the references are to the company's own website, a primary source. Since Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it would be much better to have independent confirmation, such as newspaper articles. Huon (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Saylor

Please note that the editor known as Ritchie333 who erased the original article erred in several places in his review - First, he apparently did not know that Steve Brilll'sBrills Content is a very respectable online newspaper media watchdog referred to in Wikipedia itself under Steve Brill. Ritchie333 referred to it as a newsletter. Second, Ritchie333 erred in commenting that an article did not reference Saylor when in fact it did. Finally, it appears that Ritchie333 did not read the references in the article he reviewed and deleted it based poor reasoning and little understanding of the content area -- Ritchie333 stated that the article was defamatory.

In no way is this article defamatory. It is a factual article about a notable editor who ushered Pulitzer prizes to completion and gave the LA Times stature during his tenure. I believe Ritchie333's prior comments and lack of knowledge concerning standard publications in the media area obviates his ability to review subjects in this area. A careful reading of the documentation within establishes both the notability of the subject and appropriateness of the documentation. I respectfully object to his review and to his right to review further articles in the media area. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it wasn't Ritchie333 who deleted the draft but The JPS. Secondly, the current version is rather dubiously sourced. Two of the sources are the LA Times itself (a primary source on its own entertainment editor), and neither of them supports what it's cited for; the "Crossing the line" article doesn't even mention Saylor (and yes, I searched all 40 pages). Classifying Brill's Content as a newsletter seems appropriate, and it doesn't provide significant coverage of Saylor anyway. The American Thinker article confirms only half of what it's cited for, and conversely, half of what the American Thinker had to say about Saylor somehow didn't make it into the draft. I also have doubts about its reliablity. That leaves us with the Editor and Publisher piece, which is a reprint of a Hollywood Reporter article. That's the one most similar to the article content it's cited for, but "friends say" is gossip at best.
It might be possible to write an acceptable article about Saylor, but this draft would have to be rewritten entirely.
I would agree, though, that it's not defamatory - quite the opposite, it's unduly laudatory. For example, there's hype such as "known for creating the first hard-nosed coverage of the entertainment industry in the business section of The LA Times", and it forgot to mention Saylor's lobbying work for South Ossetia which, according to the American Thinker, included promoting the faux human rights activist Lira Tskhovrebova. Huon (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the "defamatory" might be because there was too much information not in reliable sources (for reasons discussed above by Huon) in a biography of a living person, and the standard template for declining an article of that type mentions "defamatory" in its text and blanks the article. To suggest I hadn't reviewed the references isn't assuming good faith - chill out. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 12

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Five-infielder defense

Please review—thank you in advance. 71.146.4.142 (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is awaiting review, but since there's a massive backlog, that may take some time. However, the draft currently has just a single source, and that's another wiki - not a reliable source. When the content canot be verified from reliable sources, the submission will be declined. Huon (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Douglas S. L. Howard

Please review

I would like to know if i need to make changes.
Thank you Cebisch (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined See comment on the submission. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Ross

I submitted an article last Sunday about the well known actor Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hugh Ross It's yet to appear. When will it please? regards Nickywick111 (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined because of a lack of inline citations for possibly contentious comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a little: It's not just the lack of inline citations; the reliable sources given (YouTube and IMDb are generally not considered reliable) don't cover Ross in any detail. It's impossible to verify the article's content from those sources, and if no significant coverage of Ross in reliable secondary sources exists, he's probably non-notable by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amit Avner

Hello, I tried to create my first entry. And it got declined. And I'm tired to fixing it. How can I delete it or let someone else finish it? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amit Avner JohnSch1234 (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My heading is with my user name

I created an article for my short film, but the name is with my username. When will it change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kousik2371988 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the yellow "review" box, there is a small link that says, "Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kaalavanam", which will move it into the main reviewing namespace. However, I can't pass it for review as it has no reliable sources that can assert notability of the article. If you've created the film yourself, then unless major newspapers or magazine have written about it, it's probably not suitable for a Wikipedia article. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:BSPB/sandbox

Dear Help Desk,

Please bear with me - this is my first ever submission!

I had recently put together a diagram of railways past and present centred on Stamford railway station (using the Wikipedia route-map template for railways) in my user sandbox, and being quite pleased with the final result I submitted it for review under the heading "Stamford Lines". This was duly rejected on the grounds that I had not included any reference information.

Naturally I have reference information I can readily give (my source atlases, etc.), but my question really relates to how I go about this. Since my submission is not a textual article with references in the form of footnotes, I am not clear as to the format to be used for including my reference information. I had intended my own Stamford Lines template - once it was accepted - to live under the "Category:Templates for railway lines of the United Kingdom" page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Templates_for_railway_lines_of_the_United_Kingdom, in a similar manner to (for example) the Leeds Lines template at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Leeds_Lines.

If I look at the Leeds Lines template as an example, I can see no apparent reference information therein either. Presumably it must be there, or the creator of that template would presumably have had his or her effort rejected as I did, on the same grounds.

Clearly I am missing something, but as I said this is my first submission. Any pointers would be gratefully appreciated.

Many thanks,


User:BSPB

BSPB (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there's been a bit of confusion here. This is obviously a template, and they don't really come under the same remit as articles, so reviewing it here doesn't really make sense. If you use one in an article (such as Stamford railway station or Stamford East railway station), the information contained in the template must be attributed to a reliable source. The WikiProject Railways project might be able to give you some more advice. If you can see a valid use for you template, be bold and just create it!
Incidentally, if you need online sourcing of old railway routes, have a look at SABRE Maps, which contains a large collection of old OS maps under the "Historical OS Maps" category. You might find the "1923 MOT Half Inch" coverage particularly interesting, as it contains major railway routes as they were then, pre-nationalisation and individually named. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I originally responded to say I wasn't sure you had answered my question. However, I think I've sorted it anyway by initially searching for a page called "Template: Stamford Lines", WP not finding it so offering me the option to create it, me then cutting and pasting my original sandbox efforts into the new page, and modifying some of the header and footer codes with some copied from existing UK railway templates. This seems to have worked, as my template now appears listed on the Category:Templates for railway lines of the United Kingdom page as I had hoped. Thanks for responding!

  • When I meant "be bold", I meant simply move the sandbox article into the main template space on Wikipedia. AFC is the wrong place for this sort of thing. However, I think the problem is your account hasn't been autoconfirmed yet (you need 10 edits and 4 days since your first - you've only had 3 days so far), so you can't move pages yet. As from tomorrow, you should be able to do the move. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Holidaysafe

Hi, thanks everyone for the feedback regarding my article for creation 'Holidaysafe'. I was just wondering if anyone could expand on the feedback. Several people have said that the sources are not reliable, I have had a look at the Insure and Go wikipedia page, who are similar to Holidaysafe, and I don't understand why their sources are ok but the ones I have collected for Holidaysafe are not...? Thanks again RichMoon (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. The tag (which is put in by a template) of "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." is a bit misleading in this case. I declined this because, although a lot of the sources are reliable, and secondary, they were mostly just lists of holiday insurance packages, with Holidaysafe appearing as one of many and I didn't feel that there was anything that significantly talked about Holidaysafe in depth.
The reviewing instructions, for what it's worth, state "References about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, not directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them." Having said all of that, I feel this is a borderline case, and somebody else may have a different view (quick look towards Huon), and if you can find another reliable source or two that talks directly about Holidaysafe, and discusses them over several paragraphs, that will probably get it to pass.
The other thing to point out is that articles are evaluated on a case by case basis, and just because another article isn't up to scratch, it doesn't mean that this article should go to a similar standard. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more. Hope that's clarified things a bit. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ritchie333's assessment. The references are a mix of primary sources, self-published sources which probably are not reliable (in fact they look like undercover advertising to me), trivial coverage which does not provide any details on the company, a broken link, and a few websites which don't even mention Holidaysafe. The best of the bunch seems to be the defaqto review, but that's about a single insurance policy, not about the company. We don't have revenue figures, the number of employees or even a secondary source for the company's founding date. I don't think all of that combined suffices to establish Holidaysafe's notability. The article is also flat-out wrong in calling the Versicherungskammer Bayern Group "Germany’s largest banking group"; Germany's largest bank and insurance company are Deutsche Bank and Allianz, respectively. (Holidaysafe seems to be, via the Versicherungskammer Bayern, a subsidiary of the de:Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe, but that entire group is still smaller. Sources for those connections are insufficient anyway.) Huon (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the sources I felt were reliable were Which?, the FSA, the Daily Telegraph, and maybe, just maybe the Daily Mail (though see this). If all of them talked about HolidaySafe in depth, I'd have passed it. However, none of them do. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is the image the problem?

Hello,

My article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jim_Linderman has been twice denied. I am not sure what about is being denied as instruction is vague.

It is not supported by relevant sources- I wonder if it might just be the image that is mucking things up, in which case, could I please just post the text portion of the article without the photo and work out the image at a later date??

I am going to be in trouble if I can't work this out soon.

Thanks.

Elhiggins89 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the confusion here is that the reviewer's weren't sure what in the article was referenced by what. That in itself isn't a reason not to pass an article, though. The newspaper articles here, here and here would suggest notability. You can clean an article much more quickly than you can make a non-notable person notable! Having said that, I wouldn't personally pass this in its current state unless I was prepared to do the aesthetic cleanup on the article myself. Have a look at something like Jann Wenner to see an article on a similar subject is laid out. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate a little: Four of the six references, Linderman's book and his blogs, are primary sources, but Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Maybe some of the current "external links" could be used as sources, but if so, you should clarify which parts of the article they are supposed to support by using footnotes, just as you did with the current references (the primary sources among those should probably turned into external links instead). Huon (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Professional Loudspeakers

I sent in a submission on Community Professional Loudspeakers on July 23, 2012. I followed your editor's recommendations and revised the article on August 8. I have yet to hear back from Wikipedia since submitting this revision, and wanted to make sure that you had received it. When I made the changes, I inadvertently submitted the story four times. It is the final version I sent that I would like considered. Could you please verify that you received this revision?

Thank you for your time.


SFall34 Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Professional Loudspeakers SFall34 (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft had not been resubmitted for review; I have done so for you. Due to the backlog it will take a few days, about a week, until it will get reviewed again. However, two of the four references are primary sources (the company's own website), and the links given for the other two don't point to the correct places; I couldn't find the articles that are supposed to be the sources via the target websites' search functions. I'm not sure whether Pro Audio Asia is a reliable source in the first place; it looks more like a collection of press releases. Without significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the draft is likely to be declined again. Huon (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected submission [Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Sports Mastery]]

Hello,

I created a page but it got rejected, you stated it was because of needing more reliable sources. I have cited 3 different authors books and various websites. How can I fix this? The link to the page is below.

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

Just fyi..you stated some of my sources are not considered reliable or credible, I don't know how much more credible we need....

The Jordan to the Max video I cited is pretty credible I would think. Mel Siff's book is focused on training and he is very credible. (I believe he passed recently) J.Warner's book is on winning championships and he is credible as well. George Leonard is also a very credible author and he covers a wide range of improvement topics.

MarcC75 (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references aren't all that helpful. The first link didn't point anywhere; I believe I fixed the typo in the url, but the new target doesn't say what it's supposed to say. Mel Siff's book seems to be self-published by the co-author, Yuri Verkhoshansky, or possibly by the Supertraining Institute. J Scott Warner's book is also self-published. Sports-mastery.com is apparently a subsidiary of Warner's company Psinova. While Jordan to the Max may be a reliable source, I don't think it discusses sports mastery at an appreciable level of detail; we cite it for Jordan's claim that he mastered basketball by "incorporating various philosophies and training into his life". That' so vague it's useless. Finally there's Leonard's book which we cite for an equally vague statement about mastery in general, not for anything about sports mastery. In summary, the draft looks as if it's promoting Warner's philosophy and his organization, embellished by some vague references to the term in other sources. I doubt this is a viable topic for an article, but if it were, it should, at the very least, present the criteria for sports mastery it alludes to, and cite the "studies throughout history show[ing] evidence of pro athletes that have become masters of their sport" - I assume those studies have been published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals? The more dubious claims, such as the one about sports mastery only being taught by "artisans", should be backed up by sources independent of an organization that offers such artisan training. Huon (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Bella922323/sandbox

Bella Lawrence was bron on (personal details deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella922323 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just declined that submission because it gave no indication of notability. If you're the subject of that draft, you might want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. You might also want to be careful about what kid of personal information you publicise. Huon (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Virtual Piggy

My round of revisions still got rejected: hoping I can get it right the second time.

What specific sections should I remove to make this look more like an encyclopedia entry, and less of a company guide? Would adding a History section be adequate to get this approved, or should I am to delete items too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.128.235 (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the second user who denied your AfC submission. I would suggest removing the first three sections as they are unnecessary for a Wikipedia article. Considering visiting the link I suggested at your AfC submission (Wikipedia:Writing better articles). If you need additional help, contact me at my talk page. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shifting the focus from the details of Virtual Piggy's product to the details of the company itself - revenue figures or the number of employees, for example - would definitely help. But I must also note that many of the references aren't the reliable secondary sources we need. There are several references to Virtual Piggy's own homepage, a few blogs and opinion pieces, and several press releases. None of those come with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy we require. Rather few truly independent reliable sources remain, such as the Yahoo News piece or the Beach Reporter article; those are the ones on which the article should be based. Huon (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Foodessintals

Foodessintals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.17.193 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your question is, but the draft was declined because it was so short that it didn't give enough context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. It also didn't have any reliable sources. Huon (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TranslationArtwork.com

Dear Help Desk,

after the post have been declined I made some changes. Now I am kind of insecure if everything is fine. Would you mind to give me some feedback?

Best wishes, Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickseifried (talk • contribs) 20:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. Unfortunately, I've had to decline your submission, as it didn't have any significant reliable sources covering the company. However, please don't take it personally - hundreds of submissions are declined every week for similar reasons. At least here, you have the chance to improve them, whereas if you just create the articles directly, they have a tendency to be deleted before people really understand why. If you feel a bit disheartened, there are plenty of other things you can do on Wikipedia that don't involve creating articles directly. Find an article that interests you, look for a tag like {{cn}} and see if you can find a source that actually validates the claim made and can mean the "[citation needed]" text goes away. That will hopefully give you some insight into how to find sources. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bill Jerome

{{Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bill Jerome]] I've submitted an article for consideration on August 9. I'm not sure I've submitted it correctly. My username is Sarahshields and the article name I wanted my article to have is Bill Jerome. I'm afraid I somehow created the name of the article as Sarahshields but I'm not sure. Is there a way I can see what article and its name I have pending and the status? It is not showing up in wikipedia yet. Sarahshields (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've moved this article into the correct place. However, provided you have submitted an article for review, if it's still in your sandbox, a bot will move it to the right place after a few days. However, I can't pass it for review as none of the sources for the article have significant coverage of the article's subject. You need to find newspaper or magazine coverage that talks specifically about Bill Jerome in some depth, ideally several paragraphs or more. The fact he's worked with several famous artists doesn't mean he will be able to necessarily have a Wikipedia article, as notability is not inherited. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marie P. Anderson

What do you advice I change on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marie P. Anderson page for it to be able to pass the submission test?

Mariepanderson (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Marie P. Anderson[reply]

  • Firstly, this appears to be an article about yourself. This is generally a bad idea for a number of reasons - other people will notice a conflict of interest and accuse you of being unable to write with a neutral point of view. Also, people can write good and bad things about you, and provided they're correctly sourced, you won't be able to change them.
As for what sources, you need to find things like newspaper or magazine articles, ideally from something that's nationally published, that discuss you in depth. If you've never been interviewed for a newspaper, a magazine, TV station, radio etc many times, you probably aren't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Sorry. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A more serious problem I've noticed is the article seems to be a straight copy of the text on your website. Unfortunately, this is a copyright violation, as all content on Wikipedia can be reused elsewhere freely, which we can't do with the text on your website without written permission. I would advise you rewrite the article ASAP as it could be speedy deleted. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined article, need help!

I just got declined because my article was considered not from a neutral standpoint. In writing this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Intelligent_Energy_Storage, I tried to be as neutral as possible. This is a type of technology, not a company. Can anyone expand on how this looks like an advertisement? I am aware of two other applications that would fit this news article. If I included those and they are not part of the company discussed, would that be more acceptable? Any suggestions and advice would be much appreciated! Thank you for your time. (Aknordstrom (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that "advertisement" is not an appropriate description, but the article's tone is still problematic. It engages in various off-topic remarks (such as the history of power generation back to 1882). It is vague in its definitions (I initially read "inventory" in the first sentence as "see how much we have", not "store"). Worse, "intelligent energy storage" is so much of a neologism that many of the references don't even use that term. Yet worse, the draft uses sources that don't even mention the subject - the Fraunhofer article, for example, is about intelligent production and consumption, but not about energy storage.
The article desperately needs a clearer definition of what intelligent energy storage is. For example, much of the article speaks of intelligent energy storage in buildings, such as in those New York City residential high-rises (and that part indeed heavily promotes Demand Energy Networks), and of "electricity located at or near the end-users’ site". Yet later sources speak of storage near wind parks - far from the end user, near the producer. The definition should probably include both types. The article also needs sources that explicitly back up that definition. Right now, as I said, most sources don't even mention "itelligent energy storage"; we basically synthesize the definition from various sources, none of which makes our point.
On the other hand, everything after the lead is only partially sourced, or not at all. That should significantly be shortened: Sources that don't deal with intelligent energy storage (such as the Pearl Street source) should be removed entirely, and content that is relevant to intelligent energy storage should be backed up with reliable sources (that doesn't include company websites or opinion pieces). Huon (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Hidaddyyouth/sandbox

Hidaddyyouth (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)§Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

That's empty. What do you need help with? Huon (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 14

Who are the Dhamba Boys?

The Dhamba Boys


The Dhamba boys’ is an organization and group consists of male teenaged members. It evolved in Taluksangay, Zamboanga City, Philippines on the last week of March in 2006. The leader and all the certified members decided to call the group as Dhamba boys.

The word ‘dhamba’ is derived from a street slang which means to “eat”. All members as well as the leader are aggressive and active when it comes to eating that’s why the group is called such.

The group provides their own specialized vocabulary and is characterized by inversion of words. Indeed, they obtained it from their own dialect. Each word spoken is commonly inverted and pronounced in its new form retaining the true meaning. For instance, the word “malak” becomes “kalam”. Malak means beautiful.

They usually use this to confuse others, criticize people, casual conversations and the like. There are nineteen certified members in the group (including the leader) with three different dialects namely Yakan, Kalibugan and TausugShane ibrahim (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posted by: Shane Ibrahim August 08, 2012 Reference: The Dhamba Boys Profile

This is the wrong page to post drafts (please use the Article Wizard), but I do't see how the group is notable anyway. See also WP:NFT. Huon (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KINDLY ANSWER SOON

Can you please explain why this article was declined, though all the references are true and the author is also very famous.. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Singh Rashmi

Rrashmissingh (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer's message said, the draft was declined because it is unduly laudatory and reads like an advertisement, not like an encyclopedia article. Take for example this statement: "Coming from the land of Ashoka The Great, Budha and Mahavira, Singh Rashmi, (Rashmi Singh) has set an example for contemporary women by overcoming all odds and making a renowned place for herself in the Literary World and creating a ripple here." Says who? The references for that sentence don't mention Ashoka or Buddha and say nothing about Rashmi Singh setting an example or "making a renowned place". Similarly the sources don't confirm that her novel "has proved to be Critics delight" (I don't think those reviews are published by reliable sources anyway), or that Singh has "mastered her conscience" (what does that even mean?). Or take this statement: "This book has proved to be a Philosophers' stone and taken her to path of glory." The closest our references come to that is a review stating, "This book aims to be the philosopher s stone [...]." Again I doubt that source is reliable, but "aims to be" isn't the same as "has proved to be" anyway, and there's nothing about a "path of glory". In summary, it's a puff piece that either ignores or blatantly twists its supposed sources to present an unabashedly positive image of Singh. It violates our core policies on verifiability and a neutral point of view. Furthermore, if you are yourself Rashmi Singh, as your username suggests, you might want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged.
As a minor aside, the article also engages in an absurd amount of overlinking. We can expect our readers to know the meaning of such general terms as "deftly", "contrary" or "highlighted" without the need for a wikilink.
As a further aside about the sources: Some of them are blogs, others are websites aimed at selling Singh's books. Neither of those is considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Others are primary sources, such as News.net for the claim that Singh's blog is published by News.net, and yet others, like Patna Women's College, don't mention Singh at all. Huon (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taming The Restless Mind ).

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taming The Restless Mind

The references are true and the work is notable and neutral. What do you suggest should be done?

Rrashmissingh (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the comments that were left in the review were helpful, and should have said why your article was a problem and how the policies related to it. Anyway, I don't have enough experience with these types of references to know whether they're reliable enough, but I would recommend removing things like "The chapters are gripping" as that's not discussing it from a neutral point of view. Also, you appear to be writing an article about your own book, which is generally a bad idea, as it can lead to a conflict of interest. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a little: The first four references are, in order, the book's publisher, a blog entry, a press release, and a bookseller. None of those is a reliable source that is independent of the subject. I have doubts about the reliability of the fifth reference, but it doesn't support the statement it's cited for anyway: It doesn't mention "winning tricks", "self-esteem" or "decision making skills". The draft also suffers the same overlinking problems as the draft on the author. Huon (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Physical Identity and Access Management

Hi,

My age submission on Wikipedia titled ' Physical Identity and Access Management (PIAM)' has been rejected saying: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

I'd really appreciate if you could help me by letting me know little bit in detail that what extra do I need to provide.

Thanks PIAM Security (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)PIAM_Security[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=507413632"