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 Ritzdotcom (talk | contribs) at 05:43, 12 March 2013 (→Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nikhilesh Gupta: 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


March 6

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vietnam American International School

How can I get someone to review my article? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamieha88 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is correctly submitted for review, but we're severely backlogged with almost 2,000 drafts awaiting review. It may take some time until yours is reviewed; please be patient.
Wikipedia content should be verifiable from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news reports. Most of this draft doesn't cite any sources whatsoever, and the given sources are the sister organizations' websites, not independent sources. Furthermore, the tone seems rather promotional. For example, it's "the only private school in Hanoi, Vietnam to offer a complete American curriculum for students from kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12)" - says who? Who called the Minnesota guidelines "strict"? The draft even routinely calls the school "we" - clearly not appropriate. Thus it might be best to find some independent sources and to rewrite the draft based on what those sources have to say about the school. Huon (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ellen Spolsky

I am trying to create a page for my advisor, Prof. Ellen Spolsky. Several of your Wiki articles mention her and her scholarly friends (e.g. Lisa Zunshine) and I would like people to be able to reach her reference when she appears in wiki articles. She has written several books which I included in the book list. However, the article was rejected because it "lacked sources". Since what I want in the article is her name and own booklist, a list of sources doesn't make sense. At any rate, I can't manage to create the list (yes I've looked at your help pages and have not figured out an easy way to do this). Thanks, Dr. Orley K. MarronOkmarron (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you misunderstand the purpose of biographies on Wikipedia. A biographical article needs to be based on reliable sources that directly discuss the person herself. The question you need to ask yourself is - What do other people (not connected to her in any way) have to say about Ellen Spolsky? Her work may be very significant and even considered very important by many people, but if no independent person has published substantial information about her as a person then there cannot be an article about her here. Take a look at the specific notability guidelines for academics here. Roger (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mufeedu Rahman

[Article draft removed.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufeedu (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content must be based on what reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage. To be considered notable, people must have been the subject of significant coverage in such sources. Furthermore, you may want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view about oneself. Huon (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images to infobox

Hello--can you walk me through the process of uploading an image to an infobox, or point me to where I can learn more? Thanks.Cellotown (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the image in question and on the infobox. If the image comes with a free license such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, you should upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. If the image is not free content, you may be able to upload it to Wikipedia itself via our File Upload Wizard if it falls under the non-free content criteria. Corporate logos usually do qualify, but such images must be used only in articles proper; not-yet-accepted drafts, for example, do not suffice. You'll also have to provide a fair use rationale that explains for each article where the image is to appear why that appearance is covered by fair use. I believe for corporate logos the File Upload Wizard automatically adds a fair use rationale.
Once the image is uploaded, you'll have to check the respective infobox's documentation to find out how to add the image to the infobox; unfortunately not all infoboxes are standardized. Many take a simple "|image=Filename.ext" parameter without any additions, even without the "File:" prefix. Others use more complicated code; for example, {{Infobox company}} displays logos if you use a "|logo=[[File:Filename.ext|XXXpx|Description]]" parameter, where "XXXpx" is the size of the image and "Description" is the image caption; 220px is a standard value for the size, I believe. The template's documentation should always provide a list of parameters for that template and an example of use. Huon (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/gbs architects

Hi there, I seem to have 3 or 4 identical drafts in for review ! (and don't know how they doubled up ?... the weird thing is that on each one is says at the top "Not Submitted for Review" whilst at the bottom of the page it says "Submitted for Review " may take a week ....Have I submitted correctly ? many thanks, Nigel (Nigelspawton (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

That's not a problem. By the way, have you copy and pasted this information? Frmo either a website or a word document? Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 15:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Underground (Boston)

Hello,

I am planning on editing and resubmitting the article referenced above [Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Underground (Boston)], and it would be very helpful if I could get some more specific comments from the reviewer who declined it. It's unclear to me whether the problem of "not adequately supported by reliable sources" means (a)he/she didn't like the sources I referenced (print articles from the 1980s that mostly are not accessible online--I have scans, printouts I could easily provide, though); or (b), there are ideas, events, etc. mentioned in the entry that he/she wants to have a reference for? If there was a problem, I expected to get more specific feedback so I could adjust accordingly.

I was also hoping to have the same reviewer look at the revision when I resubmit--seems to make sense and it would probably save time for everyone.

Thanks!

paulsherman13 Paulsherman13 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message at the reviewer's talk page notifying them of this question.
The problem is definitely not the lack of online availability of 1980s newspapers - offline sources such as those are entirely acceptable. However, I'd say that the draft contains quite a bit of unsourced and inappropriate information, starting right with the second sentence: Whether the list of emerging acts hosted by the club is "impressive" or not is pure opinion, and it should not only be sourced, but attributed to that source. I doubt Vice is reliable, and it certainly doesn't mention People in Stores, Wild Stares, CCCPTV and Dangerous Birds in connection with the Underground, nor does it call Propeller Records "artsy" or "idiosyncratic". In fact, I'd say the draft's tone is a worse problem than the sources (or lack thereof). But the unspecified "vintage newspaper ads and gig flyers" cited for the "notable acts" (most of which apparently aren't notable enough for Wikipedia articles of their own) definitely are not the reliable, independent sources Wikipedia content should be based on. (By the way, "Lyres" doesn't link to a band.)
Usually a random reviewer will look at a draft after re-submission, not necessarily the same one. It might be better to get more independent feedback on an article; a second reviewer may notice issues the first one missed (or, conversely, may disagree with the issues the first one saw). Besides, keeping tabs on all pages they reviewed would bloat reviewers' watchlists. Huon (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the one source from vice is questanble plus like Huon said unsourced and inappropriate information, starting right with the second sentence: Whether the list of emerging acts hosted by the club is "impressive" or not is pure opinion, and it should not only be sourced, but attributed to that source. etc etc. You are welcome to work on it and resubmit it and like Huon else will look at it after u resubmit it and they will say yes or no to it at that time.Oo7565 (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Samuel Snowden

Whenever I save or preview the page I am creating, I lose all of the information I have typed in except for the introduction of the article. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Samuel Snowden

Mdaley55 (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Mark D[reply]

The issue was a broken <ref> tag: If you want to refer to a certain named reference again, the correct code is <ref name="RefName" />; if you omit the "/", that will be interpreted as the beginning of a new footnote, and everything afterwards as content of that footnote. Huon (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re-submitting an edited article

I edited an article and tried to re-submit, but I have no indication that it has been submitted. Please advise. "Waldo Family Lecture Series on International Relations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by News 2222 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not currently resubmitted this article. Click on the link next to the text that says "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." You will know when it has been submitted because a yellow "submission waiting for review" box will appear. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James B. Norman

there is an indication on an article for James B. Norman that it sounds like "advertising" - how should i correct that page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseydeak (talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article has worse problems than its tone - it does not show Norman has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or articles about Norman (not by Norman) in reputable journals on history or photography. We need such coverage to establish that Norman is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.
That said, the draft's tone does seem unduly and one-sidedly positive; for example, which source says that the objects Norman photographed were the state's "most significant historic resources"? The book descriptions read like sales blurbs, and we shouldn't use adjectives like "amazing" without attribution to the source - they're obviously just opinion, not statements of fact. In this case it doesn't even refer to Norman or his work, so it's irrelevant opinion anyway. Huon (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Chronic Blues Circus

Hi, I dont know about getting this article about The Chronic Blues Circus submitted. Regards, zbpete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbpete (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is submitted for review, but in its current state it will probably be declined because it is unduly promotional. Claims such as "Bangalore's foremost Blues Band" should not only cite a source, but be attributed to the source: "Critic John Doe, writing for the Deccan Herald, called The Chronic Blues Circus 'Bangalore's foremost Blues Band'." You should also use inline citations and footnotes to clarify which source supports which statement, and you should provide some additional bibliographical details such as page numbers, article titles or, if available, links to online versions of the news sources. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Janwari

It has been over a week and this article is still under review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.227.77 (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're currently severely backlogged, with more than 2,000 submissions awaiting review. Please be patient. I have just had a look at the submission and had to decline it because it doesn't cite sufficently many independent, reliable sources such as newspapers to clearly establish Janwari's notability, and because its tone was unduly promotional. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Filipino band Jargons from Koza Okinawa

I was stationed at MCAS Futenma Okinawa from 1971 through 1972 and became friends with band members from a rock band called the Jargons whom performed at a nightclub on Gate-2 Street in Koza Okinawa. I would like to get in touch with them if possible. Thanks for any help I can get. Steve Greene173.216.16.125 (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not meant to contact other people; we cannot help you. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Noam Tibon

Hello,

the article is based completely on Hebrew sources which appear on this existing article - http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%9D_%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuelpep (talk • contribs) 15:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources are acceptable; see WP:NONENG. But you must cite them in the draft; otherwise our readers will have no way to tell which source supports which of the draft's statements. See WP:Referencing for beginners for referencing help. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop

Hi there! I am at the moment re-drafting the (declined) ‘Organization Workshop’ article on the basis of the comments made by your reviewer. I am acting on all those comments, except one, which baffles me: re:” This looks very much as if it were copied or slightly adapted or closely paraphrased from an outside source. We do not do that. SeeClose paraphrase for an explanation” 1. It may be that I copied a particular sentence, but in that case, I do not know what sentence the reviewer is referring to 2. If the reviewer means that the whole piece is copied, now, that really throws me. If that is the case, where from? I know that there is an ‘Organization Workshop’ article on the seriti.org.za webpage, but that is my very own and will be taken down once this wiki rewrite is done . Is it possible to copy from myself? Many thanks Raff Carmen (Rafaelcarmen 18:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • PS: seriti webpage: if the 'copied' comment indeed does refer to the 'carmen&labra' seriti article, every part of the present redraft is being seen & approved by Labra (Rafaelcarmen 18:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)) contribs) [reply]

I have to agree with the reviewer: The draft sounds like a close paraphrase of this text, so close that it will have to be considered a copyright violation, which Wikipedia for obvious reasons cannot accept. I thus tagged the draft for speedy deletion. There is no evidence that the source has been released under a free license compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. If you are indeed the author of the source and want to donate it under a free license, see WP:Donating copyrighted materials on how to do so. However, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and we should neutrally summarize what those sources say. I'm rather skeptical about that. For example, does Wertsch really say that the Soviet concept of activity inspired OW? Furthermore, the text seems heavily based on an upcoming, not-yet-published book, which is not a reliable sorce by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: “The Organization Workshop”:declined AfC Dear Reviewer: It has been known for authors to publish a second, upgraded version of their original work. This is particularly true for textbooks and Encyclopediae. I myself am the author of the incriminated online article which, as I understand it, forms the basis for Wikipedia declining my present AfC. A second edition by the same authors does not usually imply that the authors have ‘paraphrased’ or ‘copied’ (from themselves): the new, upgraded edition simply makes the first edition redundant. I am extremely sorry for carelessly having left my ‘first edition’ of ‘The Organization Workshop” online. As you will notice, it now has been removed. At the moment, I am still editing the AfC: all the other reviewer remarks will be duly taken into consideration in that process. I hereby again sincerely apologize for my carelessness in having left the original version of ‘Organizatiion Workshop’ online. It has now been removed. May I therefore politely ask you to please reinstate my AfC site. Many thanks (PS: 11.03.13, 10:00hrs local time: Technical hitch: www.seriti.org.za where the earlier edition of my article was posted tell me that the content has now definitely been deleted. Unfortunately, the ‘shell’/'ghost' of that article can still be googled and will take some time to disappear, too. Having been deleted, the article definitely cannot be downloaded any more: re, see the “You have no rights to access files in this category” red flag if you go and check the seriti site for the article in question. Shall we compare this to the dustcover of my first edition remaining “on the library shelves"? Sorry again for this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC) (Rafaelcarmen 12:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • contribs) [reply]

(Rafaelcarmen 13:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)‎[reply]

Hi there, you appear to have put the comment preceding the OTRS notices in two different places on this page. I had responded to you in the other one. Which I'll copy below. I am then going to remove the duplicate comment you added. Please continue to use this section for all further comments and queries. Also, you need to sign your comments with a live signature. WP:SIGHOW explains how to do this. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied comment) I'm afraid that simply taking an article off-line or putting it behind a log-in wall does not solve the copyright problem. Once a piece of work has been previously published it is in copyright and cannot be used verbatim or closely paraphrased here unless it is released with a compatible license. (The original text is still available in the cached version [1] as is the PDF file.) The fact that you wrote the original does not solve the problem either. You need to follow the procedure at WP:Donating copyright materials, and must follow the procedure to the letter. If parts of the text appear anywhere in print, e.g. in a book like this, or in an off-line journal article, the same applies. I know this seems horribly bureaucratic, but we have do it this way not only to protect Wikipedia's legal position but also that of the people who re-use this material. Voceditenore (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the necessary mail to OTRS has been sent; I've left a note at the OTRS noticeboard clarifying the relevant Wikipedia content. My suggestion would be to simply wait and give the volunteers at OTRS time to confirm that permission has been sent. Once they do so, the next step should probably be to get rid of one of the two drafts; we certainly don't need both Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop (OW). Rafaelcarmen should keep one of them and kill off the other one by adding {{db-author}} to the very top. Since the deleted draft was much better-formatted than the other version, it might be easiest to have it undeleted and to get rid of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop (OW) instead. Huon (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17.15 hrs I have now,as advised, added the {{db-author}} tab on top of the earlier, duplicate, badly formatted 'Organization Workshop(OW)' draft page but, as far as I can see, the page was not deleted? (Rafaelcarmen 17:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • contribs)

Deletion will be quick, but it's not instantaneous: An administrator will still have to look at the draft and perform the deletion. Huon (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/hip hop hall of fame awards

Hello:

We just wanted to make sure that we are done with the process for submitting Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/hip hop hall of fame awards for Review. Thank you. A.M. Thompsoninternationalpros (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is correctly submitted for review. You may want to have a look at your references, though: They don't all say what they're cited for. For example, the 2004 Billboard article for obvious reasons does not mention "other joint venture projects that hit and missed from 2006-2011". If you are associated with James JT Thompson, you may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest: Writing about a topic you're closely associated with is discouraged because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view. Huon (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response: I am a journalist and writer who also happens to work on special projects for the Hip Hop Hall of Fame Awards, and this is a topic that was not listed and for historical, archival, educational, and preservation purposes it needs to be established as a permanent page on wiki-pedia. The 2004 article does mention some of the hits of the 2006-2012, but not all entirely, because it is a vast excercise that is for an autobiography for Mr. Thompson, and not for a listing, in my humble opinion. This is History, and should be added without any issues or conflicts. Thank you.. Alexia Martinique — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompsoninternationalpros (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying the 2004 article discusses the success of projects that postdate it by two years or more? That would be an impressive feat of prophecy, but unfortunately it's simply wrong. I agree, though, that the draft has too much biographical information on Thompson that is irrelevant to the Hip Hop Hall of Fame. As an aside, archiving and preservation are not what Wikipedia is about, and working for the Hip Hop Hall of Fame Awards is certainly a conflict of interest when writing a Wikipedia article about them. Huon (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aubrey Tingle

I am creating a new article called "Aubrey Tingle" It's formatted, referenced, and internal links installed. My problem is with the internet when I'm looking up external links. After about half a dozen it slows right down (even though I'm careful to go back to the home page each time) and stops. Then the computer stops running altogether. Yesterday I lost ALL my work. Today I got to the point where it slowed down and saved the article, even though it's not complete and I will have to edit it to insert the remaining external links.

Has anyone else had this problem, and how did you deal with it? (My computer is a desktop with 8 gigs RAM)

Cheers

Writerred

Writerred (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have such a problem, and I have far less RAM than you. Unfortunately I don't really have a better idea of what may cause your problem. If you're using Windows, I'd keep an eye on the task manager - if it's a problem with either memory or CPU capacity, you should see it.
On an entirely unrelated note, I believe many of the external links won't make good references. Quite a few of them are primary sources such as websites affiliated with Tingle or papers written by him. One is even a page of Google search results - I cannot think of why we would want to cite that. Huon (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Music Centre

Hello reviewers,

I received notice that my article on the National Music Centre in Calgary, Alberta was rejected and I needed a little clarification. The rejection notice stated that my tone and sources didn't appear neutral enough for an encyclopedia entry. All of my source were taken from reputable news sources and, I believe, should be adequately objective for the article entry. So it just the tone of my article that seems too much like an advertisement. I'm used to writing research papers, so maybe my writing style is bringing my objectivity into question.

Best regards

Musicmuseum (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)JimJamJummel[reply]

The tone is indeed prolematic. Just to provide an obvious example, encyclopedia articles usually do not address the reader: "The NMC offers tours in its current facility that take you through the history of musical instruments." The draft is also full of promotional phrases such as "boasts", "celebrate a broader vision", "some of the world’s most creative and innovative architects" and so on. I'm also not all that impressed by the references. The Globe and Mail is available online, and the article doesn't mention the NMC at all. Many others, such as "Portland Journal of Commerce. 2009", are rather vague and could do with a title and a page number. I'd expect other sources from 2008 and afterwards to be available online, but didn't find any except the Globe and Mail - links to online editions would be nice. And then the draft has entire sections that don't cite any sources at all. Huon (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aubrey Tingle (2)

Hello Huon:

I'm responding to your comments about the Aubrey Tingle article (still a work in progress--I had to save the page or risk losing it)

Thank you for pointing out the Google reference. I have deleted that. Otherwise, though, I am unclear about your remarks on "external links". Do you mean the references listed at the end of the page, or the links in the body of the text? If the former, they are all (I believe) independent of the subject of the article, Aubrey Tingle, although they might refer to him (I thought that was the object of references) in ways that support the text.

By "external links" I mean the links in the text that are not Wikipedia pages. In most cases these links are to the websites of organizations named in the article.

I hope to revise the article so that it can be accepted. Are you the designated reviewer for this one, or does it have to take its place in line? If you are the reviewer, could you indicate "citation needed" where, in your opinion, a reference is inadequate, and I will search for more?

Many thanks

Writerred

Writerred (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the confusion; I was talking about the references. I hadn't noticed the external links within the article proper; per WP:EL standard practice is to add such links in a separate "external links" section at the very end of the article, after the references, and only if the website is relevant to the article. For example, I don't see how the NCE website is relevant to the article since it doesn't mention the subject.
I tried to reproduce your original problem with the links in the article proper, but they too work flawlessly for me.
There is no "designated reviewer", and if I reviewed the draft right now, I'd have to decline it. Let me go through the references: The very first one is his (former) university's faculty page, his employer writing about Tingle. That's not independent. The second is the MSFHR writing about its own former president, again not independent. The third may be independent, but it's cited for Tingle's NCE board memberships, and it doesn't actually mention those board memberships. The fourth is an institute for which Tingle worked as an advisory board member, not independent. The fifth is a research paper co-authored by Tingle, not independent. The sixth seems to be another CV hosted by a former employer. The seventh is a Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia doesn't consider itself reliable (it should probably be turned into an internal link). This is a more or less representative sample - the vast majority of references are the websites of organizations Tingle is affiliated with in some way.
On an entirely unrelated note, footnotes should be placed immediately after the content they're cited for, not in section headings. Huon (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel

Hello, I've already asked a question regarding the article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel but lost the link to the conversation. I don't know better than to copy the conversation so far in here and hope you can help me...

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Hello, I have created a new Article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christian Seidel. It is the english version of a german Article about Christian Seidel. I was asked to bring evidence of the subjects notability. In Germany he is a notable Person, and there are several publications. I checked the Notability Guidelines and found the following as suitable: "Creative professionals >4.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Can you please tell me what else I can mention that would point out the notability? Thank you in advance! CTC2 (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You'll still have to provide reliable sources that are independent of the subject so the readers can verify that Seidel created a significant work, or that he has been the subject of independent books, films or articles - say, news coverage or said articles discussing his work. Right now the article doesn't cite any sources, and most of the external links are Seidel speaking about Seidel - not quite independent. See also Help:Footnotes andWP:Referencing for beginners. Huon (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. But this is a misunderstanding. There is not a single link, 'Seidel speaking about Seidel', as you have mentioned in your comment. In the list of my sources there have been a few articles, written by 'Christian Seidl about Christian Seidel. In fact this author is a notable international writer, called Christian Seidl (without an 'e'). He is someone else than Christian Seidel. But I understand, that the similarity of the names confuses. Because of this I have removed these sources and added some other sources. I hope the article is accepted now.CTC2 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the various interviews - with the ZDF, with BR3, with DWDL and so on. For all of those, Seidel himself is the primary source of information about Seidel. With the current list of references, footnotes are ever more important to clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements. For example, which of the sources credits Seidel's PR success to his "unique style of concept writing"? Huon (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Montaigne's Tower

I am confused by the rejection of a proposed article (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Montaigne's Tower) based on "lack of independent sources to prove notability." I have added a couple sources since the rejection and will add more (the article is back to WIP stage), but the sources provided were independent from the subject (except possibly one, the public site of the castle in which the tower in question is located).

The notability of the tower seems difficult to contest to me for several reasons (mostly: 1) the castle has been included in Wikipedia, when the tower is architecturally more authentic, which the French government recognized by protecting it 50 years earlier than it did the rest of the castle; and 2) the tower is the place where the most studied work of 16th-century French literature was written, was uniquely important to this writing, and is very much cited in the book). However it is possible that I did not redact the article clearly enough to indicate this; I am trying to avoid hyperbole, so I may not have struck the right note.

Most sources are in French, which might also be an issue (just let me know).

Any help with addressing issues is very much welcome,

Impaire (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)impaire[reply]

First of all, the sources' language is not a problem; while English sources are oviously easier for our readers, non-English sources are acceptable as well.
When the draft was rejected, it had five sources, including Montaigne's Essays, which would not be an independent source on Montaigne's Tower, and Grigson's book of poems as a source on Grigson's poem - Grigson obviously is not an independent source on his own poem, nor is a poem a reliable source on the Tower. If we had a literary critic discussing that poem, that would be a much better source. The DRAC website devotes less than a sentence to the Tower and doesn't confirm all the content of the "architecture" section, for which it is the only source.
The new sources are much better. Wikipedia measures notability by the amount of coverage a subject has received in independent, reliable sources such as articles in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, and these new sources show the tower itself has indeed been discussed at length in such sources. Huon (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox - Yes or No?

Hello All,
I have written a page in my sandbox (as we are told to do in various places round Wikipedia) User:Kiltpin/Sandbox_2. When I thought it was ready, I clicked on the Article For Creation link at the top of the page and it joined the queue at Afc. It is slowly working its way up the list. So far so good.
In an idle moment today I looked at the Afc Talk Page. One of the reviewers was bemoaning the fact that so many articles were in sandboxes.
So, here are the questions -
Should I move my article to the name it should be, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Armorial Register Limited, or should I leave it as User:Kiltpin/Sandbox_2?
Will it mess up the system, now that it is already in the queue?
And finally, if I did move it, will it keep its place in the queue or go back to the start?
Thank you Kiltpin (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Armorial Register Limited is indeed easier on the reviewers; I have done so. It won't cost your draft its place in the queue, though drafts aren't necessarily reviewed in strict chronological order anyway.
On an entirely unrelated note, I don't think your references suffice to establish the publisher's notability. To be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, a company must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or maybe articles in reputable trade magazines. I don't think Cheshire Heraldry is a reliable source, and it doesn't seem to mention the publisher anyway. Companies House is a directory of all businesses in the UK, for all I can tell; being listed there is not significant coverage. Huon (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Huon, for your swift reply and help. I will work on the notability. Thanks again. Kiltpin (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gabriele Mandel

Hallo All, I am struggling to put inline citations to this article as the lack of inline citations is one of the reasons it was rejected (I have fixed the other). I don't seem to advance much :-( though. If you look at the edit history you will see...

Is there anyone who can lend me a hand? Thanks in advance!

By the way, this article exists in Italian, German, Turkish and Català. Are the standards somehow different in other languages than English?!?

Love and chocolate from Switzerland.

Lady Mim (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience the English Wikipedia's standards are higher than the de facto standards of many other Wikipedias; for example, de:Gabriele Mandel does not cite a single reference and would, in the English Wikipedia, be open for deletion via WP:PRODBLP. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems relevant: Other articles not conforming to our standards exist (and the English Wikipedia also has quite a few articles that don't satisfy our standards), but each submission must stand on its own merits, and we should not use sub-par examples as a pretext to lower our standards and create more sub-par articles.
I have tidied up the references. At its most basic, a footnote is created by <ref>...</ref> tags, where everything between the tags becomes the footnote. If you want to refer to the same reference twice, you can add a name parameter to the tag: <ref name="Example">...</ref> The next time you can refer to the same source only by the name: <ref name="Example" /> Note that instead of a closing <ref/> tag here you just have the slash; if you omit that, everything afterwards would be considered as part of a new footnote. That kind of typo could let significant portions of the draft vanish.
On an entirely unrelated note, the "popular converts to Islam" website seems empty, and even if it existed, it would only be a blog without editorial oversight, not a reliable source. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable, independent sources such as the Corriere della Sera article - but on its own that source may be too little to establish Mandel's notability. Huon (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I will study this matter further, I might find some other articles in the Italian press. Thanks for pointing at the notability. One thing that hinds me is that many sources are simply NOT on the web. Italians bother less... Love and chocolate, Marina Lady Mim (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While online sources are easier for the readers, offline sources such as the print editions of newspapers are also acceptable. Huon (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teacher quality

A discussion about this article, in which one editor who opposed its creation started an RfC about the issue, has been prematurely archived to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013_March 4#Teacher Quality. At the time of archiving there were three experienced editors who were in favour of creating this article under a different title "Teacher quality assessment". Can we please take this out of the archive and get some resolution here one way or another? This is most unfair to the new editor who created this article. Voceditenore (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have expressed a strong opinion about it, agreeing with Voceditnore, and suggesting the first step is simply to accept it and move as suggested, leaving further improvement for later, I prefer not to actually close it. Maybe some admins would not be so particular about things like this, but I ask that comebody else do what I think is obvious. DGG (talk ) 15:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just move it to article space as 'Teacher quality assessment' and throw it to the wolves. There's already an article about Educational assessment (more relevant to student progress), for example. Sionk (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm in favour of that. The problem is, after DGG said that he was going to move it into article space, Kinkreet started a formal RfC. After he did that, only I, DGG, and you (Sionk) formally commented. We all said that it should be moved under the new title. No one else ever returned to the RfC to formally comment, including the editor who initiated it, and it was archived. Since it was a formal RfC, doesn't it have to be formally closed? It seems an RfC can also be closed by a consensus of the participants without a formal admin closure. Perhaps we can wait 48 hours and if no one objects, we take it as a consensus to close. But, if so, how can that be done if it's archived? At the moment, it's still listed here as open RfC. The whole thing is pretty silly, frankly. Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about resubmitting revised article

Hello,

I can't find any obvious way to tell if the article - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Join In Local Sport - has been resubmitted for approval following additional edits.

Would appreciate any help/advice!

Many thanks.

JoinInUK (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the bottommost "submission declined" box, there is a link saying "When you are ready to resubmit, click here". Click on that and the article will be requeued. By the way, your username implies you are editing on behalf of an organisation, which is unacceptable, and may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. I would recommend you get your username changed ASAP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:Krisbenz/sandbox

Why is there a warning in my article titled 'Nakabahee (a locality at Patan in Nepal) for editing saying 'there is a similar title already in use' but when I checked the search in wikipedia, I could not find any article related to the titleKrisbenz (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the script that produces the warning is bad at guessing what drafts should be named. It guessed that your draft should be named "sandbox" and complained because we already have a "sandbox" article. I've resolved the issue by moving your draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nakabahee, the preferred location for drafts awaiting review.
On an unrelated note, your draft doesn't cite any reliable sources such as news coverage or census data. Its content is not verifiable. Without such sources the submission will be declined. Huon (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Society for Cultural Anthropology

I've added some links to establish the notability of the SCA. Would someone be able to tell me if I'm on the right track?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Society_for_Cultural_Anthropology Otsuki3c (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a very good source: Reliable, independent, an entire article about the SCA and its journal. Reuters is also reliable and independent, but it's just a list entry that doesn't even mention the SCA and thus cannot help establish its notability. So you're on the right track, but the Chronicle on its own is still too little to establish notability. Huon (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

blue box

what are the blue boxes when you are writing a page and how do you get rid of them? Custardpieboy (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what "blue boxes" you mean; could you describe them in a little more detail? Do they appear when you preview a page? Do they have any content? If you mean the "Article not currently submitted for review." message boxes, those are meant to inform you that your draft isn't live yet; you can submit it for review by following the instructions in those message boxes, and once the draft has been accepted, they will be removed. However, your draft currently doesn't cite any sources and does not establish that its subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards; thus in its current form the submission would be declined. Huon (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Fantastic. Yes they are on the Preview page. I I wasn't sure but now I seem to recall that they go when you submit it. Thanks for your help! Custardpieboy (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


March 12

Review of User:Sandyschram/sandbox

Dear Help Desk: I am not sure if my article submitted from my sandbox for approval for posting is in the right place. A warning on the bottom after the notice of pending review says it should be moved but I cannot move it, receiving a notice to that effect when I try. My article is in my sandbox, my account login is sandyschram. I did get the notice that it will be reviewed, but that notice also came with a warning that I cannot do anything about. Please clarify. Sandyschram (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Sandy Schram Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sanford Schram[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sean Bell (Pitcher)

Hi, I'm sending this message regarding the article I created, Sean Bell. It went into revision and I was wondering, Bell is a baseball player and in Wikipedia it appears under every player a small table with stats and divisions. I would like to know how can I develop one? Let me know,thanks.1remains (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nikhilesh Gupta

To the Helpdesk, Wikipedia

Dear Team,

I would like to follow up on the above article submission. It's been a while (almost 2 weeks)since I have submitted my article for my review. Kindly let me know the status of my article.

Thanks

Best Regards, Ritwika Gupta (Ritzdotcom (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=543571240"